Hubbry Logo
Point-defencePoint-defenceMain
Open search
Point-defence
Community hub
Point-defence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Point-defence
Point-defence
Point-defence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Point defence (or point defense; see spelling differences) is the defence of a single object or a limited area, e.g. a ship, building or an airfield, now usually against air attacks and guided missiles.[1] Point defence weapons have a smaller range in contrast to area-defence systems and are placed near or on the object to be protected.

Point defence may include:

Coastal artillery to protect harbours is similar conceptually, but is generally not classified as point defence. Similarly, passive systems—electronic countermeasures, decoys, chaff, flares, barrage balloons—are not considered point defence.

Examples

[edit]

Aircraft

[edit]
  • Bachem Ba 349 Natter – vertical take-off rocket powered crewed interceptor (prototypes only)
  • Convair XF-92 – Later used as testbed for later projects.
  • F-14 ADC – Proposed interceptor for the USAF Air Defense Command.
  • Junkers EF 009 Hubjäger – Proposed interceptor with 10 radially placed turbojet engines.
  • Messerschmitt Me 163 – World War II-era operational German rocket powered interceptor.
  • NR-349 – Proposed Improved Manned Interceptor replacement for the F-101, F-102 and F-106.[2][3]

Close-in weapons systems

[edit]

Surface-to-air missile systems

[edit]

Active Protection Systems

[edit]
  • Arena APS – a Russian point defence system for individual armoured vehicles.
  • Trophy APS - an Israeli APS in service with the IDF.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Point-defence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Point defense is a military defensive strategy focused on protecting specific high-value assets, such as command centers, air bases, ships, or installations, from localized air and missile threats using short- to medium-range air defense systems like surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and close-in weapon systems (CIWS). This approach emphasizes rapid detection, interception, and neutralization of incoming threats in the immediate vicinity of the defended point, often as the innermost layer of a broader integrated air and missile defense architecture (as described in Joint Publication 3-01, 2018; updated 2023). As a core component of defensive counterair (DCA) operations, point defense contrasts with area defense, which employs longer-range systems to safeguard broader regions or sectors within a joint operations area. In point defense, resources are allocated to create layered protections around prioritized targets listed on a defended asset list (), integrating active measures—such as engagements by SAMs or —with passive measures like , hardening, and early warning networks (per JP 3-01, 2018; see 2023 version for potential updates). Coordination is managed by the area air defense (AADC) through regional or sector commanders, utilizing engagement zones (MEZs) and weapons control statuses to ensure timely and effective responses (as of 2018 doctrine). Key principles include defense in depth for redundancy, 360-degree coverage, and mutual support among systems to counter saturation attacks from aircraft, cruise s, or ballistic s. Point defense systems are employed across military domains to address domain-specific threats. On land, the U.S. Army's Patriot system provides mobile, ground-based point defense against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and , capable of terminal-phase intercepts for high-value assets like airfields. In maritime operations, the U.S. Navy integrates point defense through Aegis-equipped destroyers for medium-range SAM engagements and CIWS like the for close-in protection against anti-ship missiles, forming the inner layer of ship . For air bases, joint doctrine emphasizes short-range air defenses (SHORAD) such as man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) and anti- to enable agile combat employment amid contested environments. These capabilities have evolved to counter modern threats, including hypersonic weapons and drone swarms, underscoring point defense's role in sustaining operational tempo.

Introduction

Definition

Point defense is a focused on the protection of a single high-value asset, vehicle, or limited geographic area—such as a , armored vehicle, command facility, airfield, or building—against localized threats including incoming missiles, low-flying , or unmanned aerial vehicles. These engagements emphasize rapid response in the terminal phase of an attack after threats have penetrated outer layers of defense. The primary objectives of point defense are to safeguard critical assets from destruction or disruption by enabling immediate, often autonomous or neutralization of threats that pose an imminent danger. This approach prioritizes the survival of vital elements within a confined vicinity, contrasting with broader defensive strategies that cover larger theaters or populations. By focusing on localized , point defense ensures operational continuity for key nodes, such as naval vessels in a or forward operating bases. Point defense encompasses both hard-kill methods, which involve direct physical destruction of the threat through kinetic interceptors like missiles or guns, and soft-kill techniques, such as electronic jamming, decoys, or directed energy to deceive or disrupt incoming projectiles. The term was formalized in mid-20th-century naval and air defense doctrines, emerging prominently during the as advancements in missile technology necessitated layered, asset-specific countermeasures.

Distinction from Area Defence

Point defense and area defense represent two fundamental approaches in air and missile defense architectures, distinguished primarily by their scope of coverage and operational focus. Point defense is designed to protect a limited area around a specific high-value asset, such as an airfield, ship, or command post, using short- to medium-range systems that are often asset-mounted or deployed in close proximity. In contrast, area defense employs networked, long-range assets to safeguard broader zones, such as cities, bases, or entire regions, enabling early interception of threats across a joint operating area. This distinction arises from the need to balance precision protection for individual assets against comprehensive coverage for force concentrations, with point systems emphasizing terminal-phase engagements and area systems prioritizing mid-course or boost-phase intercepts. Strategically, point defense serves as the last-line "inner layer" in layered defense architectures, providing rapid, localized interception against terminal threats that penetrate outer defenses, such as low-altitude cruise missiles or drones nearing a defended asset. Area defense, functioning as an "outer umbrella," facilitates early threat neutralization to protect larger operational areas, integrating joint assets under a centralized area air defense commander for theater-wide security. Their integration enhances overall resilience; for instance, in U.S. military doctrine, point defense acts as a backup to area failures, ensuring asset survivability in contested environments like agile combat employment scenarios. This layered approach mitigates saturation attacks by distributing defensive responsibilities across phases of threat flight. Point defense offers advantages in rapid response times and lower per-unit costs due to its focused deployment, making it suitable for mobile or forward-operating assets, though it suffers from limited and to overwhelming numbers of threats outside its narrow . Area defense provides broader and greater deterrence through extensive coverage but demands significant , including networked sensors and command structures, which can introduce delays in response and higher overall expenses. Doctrinally, the U.S. Navy exemplifies this in its layered ship defense, where point elements enable self- for individual vessels against close-in threats, while area capabilities deliver regional air cover for carrier strike groups or allied forces. Similarly, U.S. Army practices employ point defense for vital installations like airfields, contrasting with area batteries that maneuver forces across divisions.

Historical Development

Early Systems

The concept of point-defence emerged during World War II as naval and ground forces sought to protect specific assets from close-range aerial attacks, primarily using anti-aircraft guns as rudimentary systems. The 40mm Bofors gun, widely adopted by the U.S. Navy and deployed on most ships by the mid-1940s, served as a prototypical point-defence weapon against low-altitude threats such as dive bombers in the Pacific theater. These guns provided rapid fire rates of up to 120 rounds per minute per barrel, enabling short-range interception of aircraft approaching within 1-2 kilometers. On land, similar 40mm batteries were employed against early guided weapons like the German V-1 flying bomb during the 1944-1945 defense of Antwerp, downing 70% of engaged threats to vital areas, with only about 4.5% of detected V-1s penetrating to impact the vital area, though their effectiveness was limited by the V-1's speed and durability. Post-World War II advancements in the late 1940s and early 1950s introduced guidance to enhance gun-based point-defence, particularly for ship self-protection. The U.S. Navy's 3-inch/50 caliber dual-purpose guns, mounted on destroyers and cruisers, integrated with early fire-control s like the Mark 56 system to automate targeting against low-flying and emerging jet threats. These systems extended effective engagement ranges to about 4-5 kilometers while improving accuracy over visual methods, marking a shift toward semi-automated defence for individual vessels. Key milestones included the British development of proximity fuzes in the early 1940s, which dramatically boosted anti-aircraft gun lethality by detonating shells near targets rather than on direct impact. First combat-tested by the U.S. Navy in January 1943 aboard the cruiser USS Helena, these radio-based VT fuzes increased hit probabilities by up to fivefold against aircraft, contributing to the neutralization of V-1 attacks on London and Antwerp in late 1944. Concurrently, early experiments with unguided rockets for airfield protection began in the mid-1940s; British forces tested 3-inch rocket batteries as supplements to guns, launching salvos to saturate low-altitude approach paths, while German prototypes like the Taifun rocket achieved limited intercepts against Allied bombers. Despite these innovations, early point-defence systems suffered from significant limitations, including heavy reliance on visual or searchlight-aided manual aiming, which proved inadequate against fast-moving or low-flying threats under poor visibility. Guns like the Bofors and 3-inch/50 struggled with ballistic constraints, such as shell trajectories that favored higher altitudes, leaving assets vulnerable to strafing attacks below 500 meters. These shortcomings, exacerbated by the increasing speed of post-war aircraft, drove the transition toward fully automated radar-directed interceptors in subsequent decades.

Cold War Era

The Cold War era marked a significant advancement in point-defence systems, propelled by the escalating nuclear standoff between the and the , as well as the proliferation of guided missiles that threatened fixed installations and naval assets. In the and , the emergence of guided surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) revolutionized point-defence capabilities, shifting from rudimentary anti-aircraft guns to precision interceptors designed for localized protection of high-value targets. The U.S. Nike Ajax, introduced in 1954, became the world's first operational SAM system, deployed specifically for defending military bases and urban centers against bomber threats. Similarly, the developed the system in the early , deploying it in concentric rings around by 1958 to provide dedicated point-defence against strategic air attacks. Naval point-defence saw parallel innovations during this period, driven by the need to counter emerging anti-ship threats. The introduced the Sea Cat missile in the as a short-range, ship-launched SAM for close-in protection against low-flying aircraft and missiles, marking an early step toward integrated naval self-defence. This development gained urgency following the 1967 sinking of the Israeli destroyer by Egyptian Komar-class boats firing Soviet SS-N-2 missiles, the first combat use of surface-to-surface guided missiles, which exposed the vulnerability of warships to standoff attacks and spurred global efforts in rapid-response defences. Early (CIWS) prototypes also emerged, focusing on automated interception to bridge gaps in missile coverage. By the and 1980s, point-defence evolved toward fully automated, radar-guided systems to handle supersonic threats at short ranges. The U.S. Navy's , operational from 1980, integrated a 20mm with for autonomous engagement of incoming missiles and aircraft, first installed aboard the USS Coral Sea. The Soviet counterpart, the , a 30mm ship-mounted introduced in the late , provided similar rapid-fire capability for fleet protection, emphasizing high-volume suppression in layered defences. These systems incorporated advanced to enable real-time target acquisition and tracking, reducing reliance on human operators amid the bipolar . Key conflicts underscored the imperative for robust point-defence. The 1973 Yom Kippur War demonstrated the lethality of mobile SAMs like the Soviet SA-6, which inflicted heavy losses on Israeli aircraft, validating the need for dedicated, rapid-response point-defence to protect ground forces and assets from such proliferated threats. In response, the U.S. , developed during the for naval air and missile defence, incorporated point-defence elements through its integrated radar and launcher architecture, enhancing ship self-protection against anti-ship missiles.

Contemporary Advances

Following the end of the Cold War, point-defence systems proliferated beyond major powers, with exports enabling middle-tier nations to acquire advanced short-range air defence capabilities. For instance, in 2000, the United Arab Emirates purchased 50 Pantsir-S1 systems from Russia, marking a significant early export of integrated gun-missile point-defence technology to a non-superpower in the Gulf region. A pivotal development in the 2000s was the U.S. Army's Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM) system, initiated in 2005 to address indirect fire threats at forward operating bases during operations in Iraq. Based on modified Phalanx CIWS technology, C-RAM provided automated detection and interception of incoming rockets and mortars, achieving its first operational intercepts shortly after deployment. The 2010s saw further innovation with Israel's Iron Dome, which became operational in 2011 to protect military bases and civilian areas from short-range rockets and artillery. Developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, it uses radar-guided Tamir interceptors to neutralize threats selectively, demonstrating over 90% success rates in early combat use against Gaza-launched projectiles. Concurrently, active protection systems (APS) like Israel's Trophy emerged for vehicular point defence; operational on Merkava tanks since 2009, it employs radar and explosive countermeasures to defeat anti-tank guided missiles at close range. In response to proliferating drone threats, the 2020s introduced adaptations like the U.S. Army's Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) program, fielding laser-equipped vehicles starting in 2021 to counter unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in maneuver formations. These systems integrate directed energy for low-cost, sustained engagements against swarms, enhancing point-defence mobility on the battlefield. Emerging trends include intensified challenges from hypersonic weapons, whose high speeds (exceeding Mach 5) and maneuverability overwhelm traditional point-defence reaction times, often limited to seconds for terminal-phase intercepts. has pursued standardization efforts, such as promoting interoperable software protocols for air defence networks, to facilitate joint point-defence operations among allies. By 2025, AI-enhanced autonomy has advanced, with systems like the U.S. Army's Golden Dome incorporating for automated threat classification and fire control, reducing operator workload in dynamic environments. The 2022 has accelerated low-cost point-defence innovations, notably through upgrades to German-supplied Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, which modified with improved radars and integration into networked defences to counter Shahed drones effectively. These adaptations highlight a shift toward affordable, scalable solutions for asymmetric aerial threats.

Operational Principles

Detection and Acquisition

Point-defence systems rely on advanced sensors to detect and acquire incoming threats at short ranges, typically 1-20 km, where reaction times are measured in seconds due to the high speeds of anti-ship missiles and other low-altitude projectiles. Primary sensor types include radars operating in the X-band for high-resolution precision tracking, electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) systems for identifying low-radar-signature threats such as stealthy drones or missiles, and passive RF sensors that detect emissions from enemy missile seekers. X-band radars, like the AN/SPQ-9B, provide pulse-Doppler capabilities to measure target velocity and discriminate real threats from clutter or decoys through Doppler analysis. EO/IR sensors complement radar by offering passive detection in adverse weather or against radar-evading targets, though they face limitations in heavy fog or rain. Passive RF detection intercepts active seeker signals from incoming missiles, enabling early cueing without emitting detectable energy. The acquisition process begins with cueing from outer-layer defenses, such as long-range radars, to direct point-defence sensors toward potential threats, reducing search volume and enabling rapid autonomous tracking. Once cued, systems perform operations, continuously updating target positions without interrupting detection sweeps, as exemplified by the AN/SPQ-9B's ability to handle multiple air and surface tracks simultaneously. Discrimination of decoys from real threats relies on and Doppler to identify ballistic trajectories or micro-motions inconsistent with or flares, achieving low false-alarm rates in high-threat scenarios. This layered cueing integrates point-defence into broader architectures, enhancing overall response efficiency. Key challenges in detection and acquisition stem from littoral environments, where sea clutter, terrain masking, and degrade performance, necessitating advanced clutter rejection—up to 90 dB in systems like the AN/SPQ-9B—to maintain detection reliability. Short reaction times, as little as 30 seconds for supersonic sea-skimming missiles detected at horizon range (e.g., 15 miles at Mach 2.5), demand automated processing to avoid human delay. Integration with (IFF) systems is critical to prevent , but poses interoperability issues in joint operations, requiring real-time amid dense electronic environments. These factors underscore the need for multi-sensor fusion to achieve robust performance in contested waters.

Interception Techniques

Point-defence interception techniques focus on neutralizing incoming threats during the terminal phase of their flight, typically within seconds to minutes of impact, to protect specific assets such as ships, vehicles, or installations. These methods rely on precise targeting data from detection systems to execute rapid engagements, prioritizing threats based on proximity, speed, and . Interceptors must account for the high closing velocities of threats like anti-ship missiles, often exceeding Mach 0.8, requiring automated fire control solutions to minimize reaction time. Hard-kill methods physically destroy or disable threats through direct kinetic impact or explosive effects. Kinetic interceptors, such as gun-based systems like the Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), fire high-velocity projectiles—typically 20mm rounds at rates up to 4,500 per minute—to fragment and penetrate incoming missiles, relying on radar-guided lead-angle predictions to align the burst with the threat's trajectory. Missile-based hard-kill systems, including the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), employ blast-fragmentation warheads that detonate in proximity to the target, creating a lethal radius of shrapnel to compensate for guidance inaccuracies in the final engagement phase. These approaches are optimized for subsonic and supersonic sea-skimming threats, with systems like CIWS designed to achieve high single-shot kill probabilities through dense projectile barrages that overwhelm small warheads or . Soft-kill methods disrupt threat guidance without physical destruction, preserving ammunition for layered defenses. Electronic countermeasures (ECM) jam seekers on active-homing missiles by emitting noise or deception signals, causing the threat to veer off course or lose lock during terminal acquisition. For infrared-guided threats, Directed Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) systems, such as the AN/AAQ-24, use modulated laser beams to dazzle or spoof the seeker's optics, projecting false heat signatures that lead the missile astray at ranges up to several kilometers. These techniques integrate with hard-kill effectors via command systems like the (SSDS), which sequences soft-kill attempts first to degrade multiple threats before committing kinetics. Engagement kinematics in point defence emphasize rapid computation of intercept geometry to counter fast-closing threats. Fire control radars calculate lead angles—the angular offset between the current threat position and predicted impact point—using vectors and constant assumptions for non-maneuvering , enabling guns or missiles to fire ahead of the line-of-sight. Against saturation attacks involving multiple threats, salvo firing deploys coordinated bursts from guns or missiles to engage several simultaneously, distributing defensive fires to maximize coverage against swarms that aim to overload sensors. In testing, such kinematics have demonstrated effectiveness against subsonic anti-ship missiles, with systems like CIWS achieving intercepts within 1-2 kilometers. Layered responses enhance survivability by sequencing engagements based on range and type, often prioritizing soft-kill for distant or low-priority before escalating to hard-kill for imminent impacts. For instance, ECM or DIRCM may be activated first against a raid, followed by intercepts for leakers, and guns reserved for the closest threats within 500 meters. This doctrine, embedded in integrated systems like SSDS, allows sequential allocation to handle raid sizes up to a . However, failure modes arise from overload in swarm attacks, where saturation exceeds interceptor capacity—such as 20+ saturating a single platform—leading to gaps in coverage and potential penetration if sensors are jammed or depletes.

Classification of Systems

Kinetic Systems

Kinetic systems in point defense rely on physical s—either high-velocity rounds from autocannons or guided missiles—to physically destroy or disrupt incoming threats such as cruise missiles, drones, or at short ranges, typically under 15 km. These systems emphasize rapid reaction times and high-volume fire to saturate the threat's path, contrasting with longer-range area defense by focusing on localized . Gun-based and missile-based effectors form the core, often integrated for layered , with effectiveness hinging on precise targeting and projectile density. Gun-based kinetic systems employ rotary or Gatling cannons to deliver a curtain of fire against close-in threats. Representative examples include 20 mm to 30 mm caliber weapons firing at rates of 3,000 to 4,500 rounds per minute, such as the cannon in the , which uses a six-barrel configuration for sustained high-speed bursts. Ammunition types, like the MK244 dual-purpose incendiary rounds with armor-piercing capabilities, are designed to penetrate and fragment warheads upon impact, maximizing damage to soft or lightly armored targets. These systems excel against slower threats, including subsonic anti-ship missiles or low-speed unmanned aerial vehicles, where the high projectile density compensates for limited range—often effective up to 2 km—by shredding incoming projectiles before they reach the defended asset. Missile-based kinetic systems provide extended reach and precision guidance for threats beyond gun range. Short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), with operational ranges of 5 to 15 km, use or seekers for terminal homing; for instance, the combines passive radiofrequency and guidance to engage maneuvering targets autonomously. Vertical launch configurations, common in naval applications, enable 360-degree coverage by propelling missiles upward before mid-course correction, eliminating the need for launcher rotation and reducing response times to seconds. This setup supports rapid salvo fire against salvos of incoming threats, with warheads employing hit-to-kill or proximity-fuzed fragmentation to ensure interception. Hybrid gun-missile systems layer these effectors for comprehensive coverage, using guns for immediate close-range denial and missiles for standoff engagements. Examples include integrated platforms like the SeaRAM, which pairs a radar with an 11-missile Rolling Airframe launcher, allowing seamless transition between kinetic modes based on threat parameters. Reload mechanisms vary: gun systems feature drum magazines holding 1,000 to 1,550 rounds, requiring manual or automated replenishment during lulls, while missile canisters are often non-reloadable at sea but support quick pod swaps with capacities of 8 to 21 rounds per launcher. This combination enhances against diverse threats by allocating resources efficiently—guns for high-volume, low-cost intercepts and missiles for precision. Despite their reliability, kinetic systems face inherent limitations that constrain operational endurance. Ammunition depletion poses a critical in prolonged or saturated attacks; for example, a magazine sustains only about 20 seconds of fire at 4,500 rounds per minute, necessitating resupply that may not be feasible under combat conditions. Additionally, reliance on for detection and guidance exposes these systems to electronic warfare vulnerabilities, where jamming or spoofing can degrade tracking accuracy and reduce interception rates against electronically agile threats.

Directed Energy Systems

Directed energy systems represent a class of non-kinetic point-defense technologies that neutralize threats through concentrated electromagnetic , primarily high-energy lasers (HEL) and high-power microwaves (HPM), without the need for physical projectiles. These systems focus on targets to induce thermal damage, disrupt electronics, or impair functionality, offering rapid engagement at the for close-range threats such as drones, rockets, and incoming missiles. Unlike traditional kinetic interceptors, directed energy weapons emphasize precision disruption, with applications in naval, ground, and aerial platforms to complement layered defenses. High-energy laser systems operate by directing a focused beam of coherent , typically in the 10-150 kW power range, to heat and damage target components such as , sensors, or structural elements. For instance, the beam can burn through drone fuselages or disable seekers by overheating critical parts, often requiring dwell times of several seconds to achieve effects on smaller aerial threats. These lasers, including solid-state and variants, propagate through the atmosphere but face from weather conditions like or , limiting operational reliability in adverse environments. Power delivery relies on efficient cooling and electrical systems, with megawatt-class generators enabling sustained operation for higher-power engagements. High-power microwave systems, in contrast, emit short, intense bursts of radiofrequency to overwhelm and fry electronic circuits in threats, inducing voltage surges that disable guidance systems or payloads without physical destruction. HPM effects can cover wider areas than lasers, making them suitable for countering swarms of drones or salvos by disrupting multiple targets simultaneously through . Systems like those developed by utilize ground-based or vehicle-mounted antennas to generate gigawatt-level pulses, prioritizing electronic disruption over thermal damage for rapid, non-lethal neutralization in point-defense scenarios. Development of these systems has advanced significantly, with the U.S. Navy's (LaWS), a 30 kW HEL, conducting successful shipboard trials in 2014 aboard the USS Ponce, where it downed drones and small boats during operational demonstrations. Israel's , a HEL weapon, entered final testing phases in the 2020s and achieved operational maturity by 2025, with deployment planned for short-range interception of rockets, artillery, mortars, and UAVs using technology integrated into national air defense architectures. Both programs highlight the need for megawatt-scale power infrastructure to support scaling to 100 kW or higher outputs for extended ranges. Key advantages of directed energy systems include virtually unlimited engagements limited only by power supply, low cost per shot compared to missiles, and minimal due to precise targeting. However, challenges persist, such as to atmospheric interference for lasers—reducing effectiveness in humid or dusty conditions—and high energy demands requiring advanced generators and thermal management. Integration with kinetic systems forms hybrid defenses, where directed energy handles initial soft-kill disruptions before kinetic intercepts engage hardened threats.

Platforms and Applications

In naval applications, point-defence systems serve as the final protective layer for warships against close-range threats, complementing broader fleet air defence architectures by engaging incoming projectiles that penetrate outer defences. These systems are essential for safeguarding high-value assets such as aircraft carriers and destroyers in maritime environments, where vessels face multi-axis attacks without the natural barriers afforded to land-based installations. Primary threats to naval forces include anti-ship missiles, such as the subsonic , which demonstrated devastating potential during the 1982 by sinking or damaging multiple British vessels, and more advanced supersonic variants like the Russian that challenge interception due to their high speed and low-altitude flight profiles. Emerging dangers also encompass swarms of unmanned surface vessels (USVs), small boats, and drones, which can overwhelm defences through sheer numbers and coordinated attacks, as evidenced by recent U.S. Navy evaluations of proliferated low-cost threats in littoral zones. Point-defence integrates with fleet-wide air defence by providing autonomous terminal interception, allowing outer layers—such as long-range surface-to-air missiles—to focus on initial threat neutralization while inner systems handle leakers. Adaptations for maritime operations emphasize platform stability and versatility to counter the dynamic challenges of states. Stabilized mounts, often gyro-stabilized, enable precise targeting in rough seas, maintaining accuracy for gun-based systems like the even in high-roll conditions up to 5. Vertical launch systems (VLS), such as the Mk 41, are widely employed on surface combatants, submarines, and carriers, allowing rapid, all-aspect missile deployment without the need for reloadable deck launchers. A representative example is the (RAM) launcher, integrated on U.S. Nimitz- and Ford-class carriers, which provides quick-reaction defence against anti-ship missiles and aircraft through its compact, vertically launched design. Doctrinally, naval point-defence forms the innermost layer in task force protection schemes, operating with high autonomy to ensure functionality during electronic warfare blackouts when radar jamming disrupts command links. This self-contained operation is critical for standalone engagements, as seen in the Falklands War where the British Sea Wolf missile system achieved notable success, reportedly downing five Argentine aircraft and preventing further losses to low-flying attackers despite limited fleet-wide coordination. Such roles underscore point-defence's emphasis on rapid, localized response to preserve force integrity in contested waters. Operational challenges in naval settings are amplified by environmental factors, including salinity-induced that accelerates material degradation on exposed components, costing the U.S. billions annually in and necessitating advanced coatings and modular designs for longevity. Additionally, the 360-degree exposure of ships at sea demands comprehensive coverage and multi-faceted weapon arrays to address threats from any , unlike shielded ground positions, often requiring distributed systems for full hemispheric protection.

Ground-Based Applications

Ground-based point-defense systems are designed to protect stationary or semi-mobile installations, such as airfields, command centers, and urban areas, from close-range aerial threats including ballistic rockets, cruise missiles, and munitions. These systems leverage terrain features for enhanced coverage and integration with broader area defense networks, providing layered protection against low-altitude, high-speed incursions that could disrupt operations or civilian infrastructure. Deployments typically involve trailer-mounted or tower-based configurations that enable semi-mobile operations for forward bases, often networked with higher-tier systems for coordinated intercepts. For instance, the U.S. National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) is employed to safeguard expeditionary airfields and command posts, utilizing mobile launchers that integrate with existing command-and-control architectures. Similarly, the U.S. Army's Avenger system supports protection of forward operating bases through its lightweight, trailer-adaptable design, allowing deployment in contested environments. Key features emphasize operational flexibility, including rapid setup times of several hours, automated fire control for quick response, and integration with camouflage netting or terrain masking to reduce detectability. The Avenger, for example, offers shoot-on-the-move capability and day-night operations, facilitating swift emplacement at expeditionary sites without compromising mobility. These attributes make ground-based systems particularly suited for protecting high-value assets in asymmetric conflicts, where threats like munitions demand immediate, localized countermeasures. In operational history, the system was deployed during the 1991 to provide point coverage for U.S. and allied ground installations against potential Iraqi aircraft and missile threats, though U.S. units did not fire in combat. In conflicts, ground-based point-defense has adapted to urban settings, as seen with Israel's , which intercepts short-range rockets aimed at populated areas, achieving high success rates in dense environments through precise trajectory prediction and minimal collateral risk. These adaptations highlight the evolution toward integrated, city-scale defenses that balance interception efficacy with urban safety constraints.

Vehicular and Aerial Applications

Point-defence systems for vehicular applications focus on integrating active protection systems (APS) onto tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) to counter anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). These systems typically employ radar-triggered interceptors that detect incoming threats via millimeter-wave and launch explosive countermeasures to neutralize them mid-flight. For instance, the Russian Arena APS, developed by the Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau, uses a suite of sensors and explosive fragments to protect against ATGMs, including top-attack variants, and RPGs. The modernized Arena-M variant features 12 interceptor silos and enhanced sensors for improved response times, equipping platforms like the T-72B3M and T-90M tanks. Design constraints for vehicular point-defence emphasize compactness to maintain mobility, with total system weights limited to under one ton to avoid overburdening lighter APCs like the , which has a combat weight around 19 tons. Power requirements are also constrained by vehicle generators, typically drawing less than 10 kW to prevent electrical overloads during operations. Coverage is engineered for 360 degrees around the vehicle using distributed sensors, such as modules on the turret, ensuring automatic operation without crew interference to minimize reaction delays in dynamic combat environments. In the 2020s, U.S. Army evolutions have integrated elements of the Protection Capability (IFPC) onto vehicles, including high-energy prototypes for countering drones and indirect fire threats. These directed-energy additions, like the 50 kW DE M-SHORAD laser, provide mobile, on-the-move defence against UAS and cruise missiles, enhancing maneuver unit survivability. Aerial point-defence prioritizes pod-mounted systems on fighters and s to enable self-protection in high-threat environments. (DIRCM) pods, such as ' J-MUSIC, use jamming to disrupt infrared-guided missiles like MANPADS, offering 360-degree coverage via modulated beams directed at threat seekers. These compact pods, weighing under 100 kg, are integrated on platforms including the A400M and C-130J. Against UAV swarms, aerial platforms employ electronic warfare () pods for jamming drone command links and GPS signals, disrupting swarm coordination without kinetic interceptors. Systems like Rafael's pod, certified for , deliver wideband jamming to deny control of small UAS in contested , where rapid electronic attack preserves aircraft maneuverability. In the , such integrations have expanded DIRCM and EW capabilities on transport and fighter fleets to counter proliferating drone threats in peer conflicts.

Notable Systems

Close-In Weapon Systems

Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) are automated, gun-based defenses designed as the final layer of protection for naval vessels against incoming s like anti-ship missiles and low-flying that have evaded longer-range interceptors. Operating at ultra-short ranges of 0.5 to 2 kilometers, these systems provide rapid, radar-guided engagement in the seconds before impact, emphasizing burst fire to saturate the threat with projectiles and disrupt its trajectory. The U.S. Navy's , introduced in 1980, exemplifies this category with its 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan mounted on a swiveling turret. It fires armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds at up to 4,500 rounds per minute in automatic mode against anti-ship missiles and , with a reduced rate of 3,000 rounds per minute for surface threats like small boats. The system's integrated search and tracking enables autonomous detection, evaluation, and burst fire within an engagement of 150 degrees on either side of the ship's centerline, supported by a 1,550-round magazine that allows approximately 20 seconds of continuous fire. Effective against subsonic threats, Phalanx achieves reliable intercepts by fragmenting the target's , though its performance diminishes against faster or maneuvering projectiles. The Dutch-developed , operational since the 1990s, employs a larger 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel for enhanced lethality at similar ranges. Firing at 4,200 rounds per minute with a of about 1,021 m/s, it uses linkless ammunition feeds holding 1,190 rounds of high-explosive incendiary or armor-piercing types, enabling bursts up to 1,000 rounds per engagement. Its advanced provides superior tracking against sea-skimming missiles, with an effective range of 1.5 km and full for rapid response. Goalkeeper's design prioritizes non-penetrating rounds to minimize to the host ship. Russia's Kashtan CIWS represents a hybrid approach, combining and elements for versatile close defense since its deployment in the early . It features twin 30 mm GSh-6-30K/AO-18 six-barrel rotary cannons firing at a combined 10,000 rounds per minute, with an ammunition capacity of 8,000 rounds per module and gun engagement ranges from 500 to 4,000 meters. Integrated 9M311 surface-to-air missiles extend coverage to 1,500–10,000 meters, allowing the system to prioritize guns for ultra-close threats and missiles for slightly longer ones, all under radar guidance for simultaneous engagements. This configuration enhances kill probabilities against subsonic anti-ship missiles by layering kinetic and guided intercepts. In combat, the saw its first real-world test during the 1987 , where the frigate was struck by two Iraqi missiles in the , killing 37 sailors despite the system's presence. The Phalanx failed to engage autonomously because it was set to manual mode amid concerns and had not undergone recent calibration, allowing the subsonic missiles to hit from outside the optimal arc; this partial operational success underscored integration challenges but drove subsequent reliability enhancements. Modern upgrades to CIWS like focus on improved sensors, faster processors, and ammunition to counter evolving threats, including hypersonic missiles and drone swarms, through multi-year Navy programs enhancing reaction times and engagement envelopes on warships such as destroyers and carriers.

Short-Range Missile Systems

Short-range missile systems serve as a critical layer in point-defence architectures, specializing in mid-terminal phase interception of incoming , cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles at ranges typically between 5 and 25 kilometers. These systems enable rapid response through vertical launch systems (VLS) or rail-mounted launchers, allowing for quick salvo firing and multi-target engagement to counter saturation attacks. Unlike closer-in defenses, they provide extended coverage while bridging to broader area-denial capabilities, emphasizing precision guidance to minimize collateral risks in protected zones. Key technical features include advanced seeker technologies for terminal homing, such as passive (IR) for heat-seeking acquisition or active for independent target tracking, which enhance accuracy against maneuvering threats. Many systems support salvo launches of 2 to 4 missiles simultaneously to overwhelm countermeasures like or flares, with designs incorporating electronic protection measures to resist jamming and decoys. For instance, dual-mode seekers combining and IR guidance improve all-weather performance and reduce vulnerability to single-spectrum jamming. Prominent examples include the U.S. Navy's (RAM), which uses passive dual-mode RF/IR guidance for engagements up to 11 kilometers and is launched from a 21-round canister for high-volume fire. The Russian , a man-portable system, employs an IR seeker resistant to countermeasures, enabling shoulder-fired intercepts at ranges around 5 kilometers for localized point defence. Integrated platforms like the Russian Pantsir-S1 combine missiles with guns, using radio-command guidance for 57E6 missiles reaching 20 kilometers against aircraft, though its optical and channels aid in low-altitude drone targeting. These systems often complement inner-layer close-in weapons by extending the engagement envelope. Deployments span naval, ground, and expeditionary roles, with shipboard integration via VLS for systems like the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM), which quad-packs into cells for flexible point defence against anti-ship threats up to 50 kilometers. Ground-based variants, such as Pantsir-S1 batteries, protect military bases and strategic sites, as seen in Syrian operations during the 2010s where they engaged drones but faced challenges from low-observable swarms, prompting upgrades for better small-target detection. Man-portable options like Igla provide dismounted troops with on-demand defence, underscoring the versatility of short-range missiles in dynamic threat environments.

Active Protection Systems

Active Protection Systems (APS) are vehicle-mounted subsystems designed to automatically detect, track, and neutralize incoming threats such as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) by launching onboard interceptors that destroy or deflect projectiles mid-flight after detection. These hard-kill or soft-kill mechanisms activate post-threat identification, providing a layered defense beyond passive armor for direct-fire scenarios. Primarily integrated into armored vehicles, APS enhance survivability against short-range, high-velocity threats in dynamic combat environments. Prominent examples include the Israeli , developed by and first operationally deployed in 2009 on Mk 4 main battle tanks (MBTs). employs radar-guided launchers to deploy explosive countermeasures that detonate in proximity to incoming projectiles, achieving high interception rates against ATGMs and RPGs. The has also been adopted by the U.S. Army for integration on M1 Abrams tanks, with initial fielding to operational units beginning in 2023 and expanded deployments as of 2025. The U.S. Quick Kill APS, developed by in the 2000s under the (FCS) program, utilized vertically launched, maneuverable radar-guided projectiles for 360-degree coverage but was canceled in 2009 following the termination of FCS due to program restructuring and cost concerns. Russia's Afghanit , integrated on the MBT, combines radar and electro-optical sensors to track threats and fires high-explosive fragmentation (HE-Frag) grenades from turret-mounted tubes, creating a debris field to disrupt projectiles. Mechanically, APS rely on explosive effectors—such as directed blasts or fragmentation warheads—that intercept and neutralize through proximity , though variants explore non-explosive options like kinetic metal pellets to reduce shrapnel. Systems incorporate panoramic sensor arrays, often including millimeter-wave radars and detectors, for omnidirectional monitoring. Response times are critically short, typically under 0.5 seconds from detection to , enabling effectiveness against fast-approaching munitions at ranges of 10-50 meters. These systems are tailored for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), where they counter direct-fire threats in vehicular applications by integrating seamlessly with existing platforms. However, limitations include risks from explosive countermeasures, which can endanger nearby friendly forces or civilians through shrapnel in confined spaces. In urban operations, such as Israel's Gaza conflicts since 2014, has demonstrated reliability in intercepting RPGs and ATGMs during intense close-quarters engagements, though dense environments amplify hazards from backblast and debris.

References

  1. https://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/JointDoctrine-CounteringAirandMissileThreats.pdf
  2. https://www.army.mil/article/162389/short_range_air_defense_back_in_demand
  3. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article-View/Article/4313344/close-in-weapons-systems-the-last-line-of-defense/
  4. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/4316568/the-point-defense-paradox-sustaining-airpower-in-contested-distributed-operatio/
  5. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/Doctrine_Advisory/Point%20Defense%20Doctrine%20Advisory.pdf
  6. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/4314018/no-base-is-safe-joint-point-defense-and-ace-in-an-era-of-saturation-threats/
  7. https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/08/05/behind-a-tin-foil-shield-the-importance-of-soft-kill-measures-in-shipboard-missile-defense/
  8. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1299airdefense/
  9. https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-AirMissileDefense.pdf
  10. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0783air/
  11. https://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/sea-based-missile-and-air-defenses.pdf
  12. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/battle-of-okinawa/antiaircraft-problem.html
  13. https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/exhibits/taking-seas-rise-american-aircraft-carrier
  14. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/f/from-dam-neck-to-okinawa.html
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0733387.pdf
  16. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html
  17. https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/recent/article-view/article/2686300/a-look-at-the-evolution-of-the-us-navy-destroyer/
  18. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/r/radio-proximty-vt-fuzes.html
  19. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Who-We-Are/History/Blogs/VT-Fuze/
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA439255.pdf
  21. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS47085/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS47085.pdf
  22. https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Air-Defense-Artillery/ADA-Journal-2023-Issue-1/What-Are-You-Going-to-Do-About-It/
  23. https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/22/2001330044/-1/-1/0/AFD-100922-032.pdf
  24. https://www.army.mil/article/176906/smdc_leader_addresses_cold_war_heroes
  25. https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-nikeajax.html
  26. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-25.htm
  27. https://vpk.name/en/598408_dome-of-moscow-how-the-legendary-soviet-s-25-berkut-air-defense-system-was-created.html
  28. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1971/march/gun-systems-air-defense
  29. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1969/october/aftermath-elath
  30. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ss-n-2.htm
  31. https://www.navy.mil/resources/fact-files/display-factfiles/article/2167831/mk-15-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-ciws/
  32. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_30mm-54_ak-630.php
  33. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR900/RR968/RAND_RR968.pdf
  34. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012/january/long-reach-aegis
  35. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-navy-missile-defense-aegis-weapon-system-missiles-launchers/
  36. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/
  37. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2005/ir1415s/05-084_IR_IFF_55M.pdf
  38. https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/counter-rocket-artillery-mortar-c-ram/
  39. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/iron-dome/
  40. https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/iron-dome-developers-set-the-record-straight-on-its-evolution-664542
  41. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2009/08/11/Trophy-anti-missile-system-installed-on-Israeli-tanks/95611250023573/
  42. https://www.leonardodrs.com/what-we-do/products-and-services/m-shorad/
  43. https://news.usni.org/2025/05/20/report-to-congress-hypersonic-missile-defense
  44. https://warontherocks.com/2024/08/three-visions-for-nato-air-and-missile-defense/
  45. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2025/03/28/army-looks-to-artificial-intelligence-to-enhance-future-golden-dome/
  46. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-will-deliver-anti-aircraft-tanks-to-ukraine/a-61595798
  47. https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/germany-considers-joint-production-of-gepard-air-defense-systems-with-ukraine-to-better-counter-russian-drones
  48. https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166776/anspq-9b-radar-set/
  49. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-spq-9.htm
  50. https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/editorial/2024/10/engaging-maritime-threats-increasing-situational-awareness-eoir
  51. https://turdef.com/article/roketsan-tests-levent-point-defence-missile-from-tcg-beykoz
  52. https://clearalign.com/knowledge-center/id/23/out-of-sight-in-control--why-eoir-systems-are-surpassing-radar-in-the-modern-battlespace
  53. https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V14-N02/14-02-Ousborne.pdf
  54. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA415645.pdf
  55. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1200&context=nwc-review
  56. https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-do/industries/military-and-defense/communications/airborne-communications/iff
  57. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/navy-shipboard-lasers.html
  58. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14099.pdf
  59. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-1.htm
  60. https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/mission-solutions/electro-optical-and-infrared-sensors-eo-ir/an-aaq-24v-dircm-directional-infrared-countermeasure
  61. https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6173-PGM2_Report_WEB_2.pdf
  62. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA258388.pdf
  63. https://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.php
  64. https://www.twz.com/sea/phalanx-ciws-costs-3500-per-second-in-ammo-to-fire
  65. https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2168961/rim-116-rolling-airframe-missile-ram/
  66. https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167555/searam-close-in-weapon-system-ciws-anti-ship-missile-defense-system/
  67. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2846737/modern-electromagnetic-spectrum-battlefield/
  68. https://www.naval-technology.com/features/top-naval-air-defence-systems/
  69. https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V13-N01/13-01-Emch_Air.pdf
  70. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2024/december/legacy-exocet
  71. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2025/05/04/u-s-navy-pursuing-palletized-close-in-weapon-systems-as-threats-evolve/
  72. https://www.defenseadvancement.com/suppliers/stabilized-platforms-marine-defense/
  73. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/naval-launchers-and-munitions.html
  74. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMBR_Sea_Wolf.php
  75. https://www.navylookout.com/from-sea-wolf-to-sea-ceptor-the-royal-navys-defensive-shield/
  76. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/sponsored/fighting-us-navys-slow-creeping-enemy-corrosion
  77. https://www.usff.navy.mil/Press-Room/News-Stories/Article/4314554/naval-research-laboratory-protects-naval-assets-land-sea-and-air/
  78. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R41526/R41526.70.pdf
  79. https://www.smdc.army.mil/Portals/38/Documents/Publications/Publications/SMDC_0120_AMD-BOOK_Finalv2.pdf
  80. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR4300/RR4368/RAND_RR4368.pdf
  81. https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-do/defence-and-security/integrated-air-and-missile-defence/nasams-air-defence-system/
  82. https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/avenger-air-defense-system/
  83. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA280001.pdf
  84. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2025/Air-Defense/
  85. https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-hawk.html
  86. https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/iron-dome/
  87. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/what-the-gaza-war-reveals-about-the-limitations-of-missile-defense/
  88. http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
  89. https://www.calibredefence.co.uk/arena-m-russias-active-protection-system-advances/
  90. https://armyrecognition.com/archives/archives-land-defense/land-defense-2024/russia-equips-t-72b3m-tanks-with-advanced-arena-m-active-protection-system
  91. https://breakingdefense.com/2021/03/trophy-vps-for-stryker-half-the-weight-all-the-protection/
  92. https://www.russiadefence.net/t2034-the-new-arena-active-protection-system
  93. https://www.army.mil/article/249549/army_to_field_laser_equipped_stryker_prototypes_in_fy_2022
  94. https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107491/index.html
  95. https://www.elbitsystems.com/air-space/airborne-self-protection/dircm-systems/c-music
  96. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elbit-systems-awarded-260-million-contract-to-supply-dircm-self-protection-systems-for-germanys-a400m-aircraft-fleet-302514701.html
  97. https://theaviationist.com/2025/07/11/leonardo-miysis-dircm-german-c-130js/
  98. https://www.rafael.co.il/system/sky-shield/
  99. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwS3G1hgOCQ
  100. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.php
  101. https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/mk-15-phalanx/
  102. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_30mm_Goalkeeper.php
  103. https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Goalkeeper-CIWS.htm
  104. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/sea/netherlands-sets-out-plans-for-goalkeeper-ciws-replacement
  105. https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/navy/weapons-systems/close-in-weapon-system/kashtan
  106. https://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/kashtan-close-in-weapons-system/2835910832001
  107. https://news.usni.org/2017/05/17/the-attack-uss-stark-at-30
  108. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1988/may/stark-report
  109. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-116.pdf
  110. https://armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2025/us-navy-sets-course-for-sustained-fleet-protection-with-phalanx-ciws-multi-year-plan
  111. https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/evolved-seasparrow-missile-essm/
  112. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm
  113. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/vis99/v99-ch3c.html
  114. https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/65/65B127CBF02A4667D8A8A229D6A5E87BIGLA.pdf
  115. https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/9K38_Igla_
  116. https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/pantsir-s-1/
  117. https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2168978/evolved-seasparrow-missile-block-1-essm-rim-162d/
  118. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2020/07/drone-era-warfare-shows-the-operational-limits-of-air.html
  119. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44598/R44598.5.pdf
  120. https://euro-sd.com/2024/01/articles/36065/active-protection-systems-an-overview/
  121. https://aviationanddefensemarketreports.com/guardians-of-steel-the-power-and-precision-of-active-protection-systems/
  122. https://www.rafael.co.il/system/trophy-aps/
  123. https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/0518-Trophy-Active-Protective-System.pdf
  124. https://www.facebook.com/RafaelDefense/posts/as-we-enter-2025-rafaels-trophy-active-protection-system-aps-continues-to-play-a/587579463909376/
  125. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/missile-defense-for-tanks-raytheon-quick-kill-vs-israeli-trophy/
  126. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44598.html
  127. https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/analysis-defense-and-security-industry/analysis-what-is-russian-t-14-armatas-active-protection-system
  128. https://www.gdots.com/protection-systems/active-protection-systems/
  129. https://defense-update.com/20250503_active-protection-systems.html
  130. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26768/tanks-defend-themselves-rockets-and-missiles/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.