Talk:Active protection system
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Top Attack Munitions:
Untitled edit
The fact firing a RPG from an elevated position onto a target below will result it hitting the top armour does not require citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.142.64 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Scope of the article edit
There seems to be some confusion as to the scope of this subject, with a few snippets on aircraft countermeasures, ship CIWS, and ballistic missile countermeasures. What are peoples' opinions on what "Active Protection System" means? I think the term applies to systems that:
- Operate at very short ranges (~100 meters)
- Are designed primarily to protect the parent platform only
- Operate fully autonomously when active
- Are generally mounted on land-based vehicles
Please let me know if your impression of what "APS" means is significantly different.
Rabbitflyer (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Signature means signature edit
"In the following the term signature refers to the electromagnetic or acoustic signature...." In other words, signature means signature. We know that. What would be helpful would be a better description of what the signature is. The circular definition doesn't help the reader's comprehension. Poihths (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Article Rewrite edit
I'm gradually removing false information from the article and correcting the scope as mentioned above. I will rewrite it as soon as I finish. The article must contain a section on sensors to be complete. A history section would be good too. Both the hard and soft kill sections are highly incomplete as well. OwenEason (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Drozd and Shtora-1 edit
The systems are listed as Russian, but were developed in the USSR and used not only by the Russian military Fgfgsl (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)