Talk:Active protection system

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)Reply

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)Reply

The article is flat out wrong, APS is specific to vehicles and does not apply to hard or soft kill measures for other platform types. I'll try to contact the editor(s) responsible for the erroneous sections before correcting them.

OwenEason (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply