Vehicles

May 19 (UPI) — A bipartisan bill in the U.S. House is proposing a new $130 fee for registering an electric vehicle to help pay for transportation infrastructure.

The Five-Year Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill was introduced on Sunday by Reps. Sam Graves, R-Mo., and Rick Larsen, D-Wash. As proposed, it would require an annual $130 registration fee for electric vehicles and $35 for plug-in hybrids.

Graves said in a statement that the bill “ensures that electric vehicle owners begin paying their fair share for the use of our roads.”

Currently, the Highway Trust Fund is used to pay for county roads, bridges, railways and other infrastructure projects. The fund is filled by taxes on gasoline.

“The ‘user pays’ principle has been fundamental to how we fund our nation’s surface transportation system for as long as I’ve been in Congress,” Larsen said in a statement. “I support that principle and worked to make sure that this new fee on EVs is fair and not punitive.”

Albert Gore III, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, said the fees would penalize electric vehicle owners. The organization estimates that the fee is higher than what is collected on the gas tax on a per-consumer basis.

The federal gasoline tax is about $0.18 per gallon. It has not changed since 1993.

“I don’t argue that the number should be zero, but the number should be fair,” Gore said.

Congress eliminated electric vehicle subsidies last year, totaling about $7,500 per vehicle, as part of an effort to peel back sustainability and environmental efforts enacted under the Biden administration.

Fees on electric vehicle owners are in place in at least 41 states,

including Colorado and New Jersey, ranging from $50 to $260.

The U.S. Army’s 1st Cavalry Division turned heads yesterday with social media posts that seemed to suggest the unit had begun fielding a new version of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) armed with a turreted 30mm cannon. Multiple outlets and large social media channels subsequently reported the news this way. TWZ asked the Army and defense contractor BAE Systems for more information, and both have clarified that the two AMPV 30s delivered this week are company-funded prototypes that are only set to be tested.

The Army will evaluate the AMPV 30s as part of the Transformation In Contact (TIC) 2.0 initiative. TIC efforts, in general, have been focused on helping accelerate the fielding of new and improved capabilities, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures to go with them. However, presently, the service has no plans to acquire this variant of the AMPV.

The Army selected the Bradley-based AMPV as the replacement for its long-serving M113 family of armored personnel carriers and related vehicles in 2014. The service’s current program of record includes five AMPV variants, all of which are turretless. The M1283 general-purpose personnel carrier, the M1284 medical evacuation vehicle, the M1285 medical treatment vehicle, the M1286 command and control version, and the M1287 mortar carrier vehicle.

So it came as something of a surprise when the 1st Cavalry Division announced the arrival of the AMPV 30s yesterday.

“Big news! The 1st Cavalry Division has just received the Army’s FIRST AMPV 30mm prototypes,” a post from the 1st Cavalry Division’s official account on X had declared. “Our troopers are leading the charge once again by integrating this next-generation capability into the formation and transforming how armored Divisions fight.”

The 1st Cavalry Division, which is based at Fort Hood in Texas, also shared a set of pictures of the vehicles yesterday through the U.S. military’s Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) website. “The AMPV features a remote 30mm turret capable of using programmable airburst ammunition, designed to target small drones and unarmored ground threats, embodying the Transforming in Contact initiative to dominate the modern battlefield,” per a common caption attached to all of these images.

As an aside, some were quick to point out a certain irony in the idea that the Army had fielded a new version of the AMPV with a cannon-armed turret. An AMPV in this configuration looks very similar to the Bradley on which the original turretless variants were based.

Despite the phrasing of the 1st Cavalry’s social media posts, the AMPV 30s are “an internal research and development type effort from BAE Systems,” an Army spokesperson told TWZ today. “It is not something the Army procured, nor is there a requirement for the system at this time.”

“This system will be participating in TIC, but again, there is no Army requirement,” the spokesperson added.

“BAE Systems provided two prototype AMPV 30s to the U.S. Army to participate in the upcoming Transformation in Contact (TiC) 2.0 initiative,” the company told TWZ in a separate statement. “The vehicles were developed through self-investment and based on the proven chassis of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). Over the next several months, the Army will run the AMPV 30s through field evaluations to benchmark the platform’s capabilities against what Soldiers require to maintain advantage on the modern battlefield.”

“Our mission was speed and innovation, and we delivered beyond expectations. With today’s battlefield evolving faster than ever, it’s paramount that Soldiers have the capabilities they need to win the fight,” a BAE Systems spokesperson also told TWZ today. “Throughout this effort, our team demonstrated how we can integrate new design solutions in a time-effective and more cost-efficient manner for the Army.”

BAE Systems also confirmed that the turret on these up-gunned AMPVs is the Medium Caliber Turret-30 (MCT-30) from Norway’s Kongsberg Defense. This is a remotely operated design that contains a Mk 44 Bushmaster II automatic cannon, as well as a fire control suite that includes electro-optical and infrared cameras. It is interesting to note that the Marine Corps is in the process of acquiring a variant of its 8×8 wheeled Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) equipped with MCT-30. BAE is also the prime contractor for the ACV family. In addition, the Army has two variants of the 8×8 Stryker wheeled armored vehicle armed with XM813 cannons, which are based on the Mk 44, but neither uses the MCT-30 turret.

An AMPV equipped with the MCT-30 was first shown publicly back in 2024. The turret in that case was also fitted with a Javelin anti-tank guided missile launcher. BAE Systems also previously announced the development of what it calls the External Mission Equipment Package (ExMEP) for these vehicles, which consists primarily of a new top plate that allows for the relatively rapid integration of various turrets. The company has said in the past that ExMEP can accommodate “more than 30 turret systems.”

In 2024, BAE had delivered another AMPV variant to the Army for evaluation, which was armed with a turreted 120mm rapid-firing mortar called NEMO (a contraction of “NEw MOrtar”). Patria in Finland, in cooperation with Kongsberg, supplied the mortar turret. The Army has not yet moved to acquire that version, either.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle – Patria NEMO 120mm Mortar Variant

What interest the Army might ultimately have in the AMPV 30 remains to be seen. The service continues to operate Bradley variants and is working to update them with new capabilities, including Iron Fist active protection systems (APS). A test last year also demonstrated the ability of the vehicle to fire a loitering munition from its TOW missile launcher, which could open up new operational possibilities. The Army is also pursuing a separate replacement for the Bradley, tentatively designated the XM30, which will be armed with a larger 50mm cannon as its main weapon.

The mention of the counter-drone mission in relation to the prototype AMPV 30s delivered to the 1st Cavalry Division could point to a potential use case for the Army. The service previously had an air defense variant of the Bradley, the M6 Linebacker, which had a launcher for Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles rather than TOWs. The last M6s were converted into standard M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles in the mid-2000s, and no direct replacement for that capability was ever acquired.

In the meantime, the threat posed by drones has continued to grow, prompting a surge in demand across the U.S. military and elsewhere globally for new capabilities to shoot them down or otherwise defend against them. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, in particular, has underscored the critical importance of protecting heavy armored vehicles from uncrewed aerial attackers.

A Ukrainian drone from the 79th Air Assault Brigade drops a 40mm HEDP grenade on a Russian UR-77 Meteorit, causing a catastrophic payload explosion. pic.twitter.com/SsaQCKXsNL

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 14, 2023

BAE Systems has previously shown another version of the AMPV in a more dedicated air defense configuration with a turret armed with a 30mm XM914 cannon, which fires a smaller round than the XM813, as well as Stinger missiles. The vehicle, seen in the picture below, also featured several small-form-factor radars to help spot and track incoming threats. An AMPV in a counter-drone or more general anti-air configuration would also be better able to keep up and otherwise operate with Army units equipped with other variants of that vehicle.

The Army could also have different demands for new, turreted AMPVs depending on how the XM30 effort continues to evolve. Designs from American Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems have been competing to secure that contract. However, a program pause and a new request for information for a different, but very similar-sounding vehicle earlier this year have raised questions about the XM30’s overall future.

Cost and other factors have scuttled several previous Bradley replacement efforts. If serious issues arise with the latest XM30 program plans, it might lead to at least a portion of the Bradley fleet ultimately being replaced by turreted AMPV variants instead.

A positive Army assessment of the AMPV 30 could be a boon for BAE, even if the service does not buy any of those vehicles, in the end, too. The combat effectiveness of older Bradley variants has recently been demonstrated in the conflict in Ukraine, and other potential customers could be attracted to the idea of a derivative with a new turret and other more modern features.

For now, anyway, the Army is set to put the AMPV 30 through its paces, but has no plans to buy any of them for its own use.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Marine Corps is working toward adding an active protection system (APS) capability to its fleet of 8×8 wheeled Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV). APSs on the market today are generally designed to defeat incoming anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons. However, many of them also have the inherent ability to down incoming drones or are being modified to address this ever-growing threat, something TWZ previously explored in a detailed feature. The Marines are already exploring additional options to improve the ACV’s defenses against uncrewed aerial attackers, as well as other upgrades to the vehicles.

Chris Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ current Program Manager for Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA), talked today about APS for the ACV fleet and other plans for those vehicles at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition, at which TWZ is in attendance.

The Marines currently field two ACV variants, the baseline personnel carrier type (ACV-P) and a version optimized for command and control tasks (ACV-C). The service is in the process of acquiring two more variants, one armed with a turreted 30mm cannon (ACV-30) and a recovery vehicle version fitted with a crane and other specialized features (ACV-R). The Corps is presently targeting 2028 for reaching initial operational capability with the ACV-30 and the ACV-R.

The Marines view the entire ACV family as central to its ability to conduct amphibious operations, as well as for providing additional lethality and other support to forces once ashore. At present, the service is planning to acquire a total fleet of 608 ACVs, consisting of 389 ACV-Ps, 33 ACV-Cs, 152 ACV-30s, and 34 ACV-Rs. Prime contractor BAE Systems has also proposed additional variants, including ones configured for electronic warfare or dedicated to the counter-drone role.

In 2018, the Corps announced it had selected the ACV as the replacement for its Cold War-era tracked Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) family. The service announced the formal retirement of the AAV last fall.

There are already “things that we’re doing today to make the ACV family vehicles even more capable,” Melkonian said at Modern Day Marine. “The analogy I use is the ACV that Marines are using today is not the ACV that they’re going to use in the future.”

This includes an “active protection system,” he added. “We’re working with the vendor to mature that capability. We’re going to move that right into production.”

Recently released budget documents also say that the Marines are asking for $28.35 million in Fiscal Year 2027 for “Ancillary Equipment” for the ACV fleet, which “is primarily attributed to the procurement of Special Mission Kits for the Active Protective System (APS).” Those same documents further note that the “funding provides APS production kits, integration kits, installation labor, countermeasures, and spares for 21 ACV-P vehicles and will add a new defensive capability to existing vehicles.”

However, neither Melkonian nor the budget documents have said what specific type of APS the ACVs are now in line to get, or when. TWZ has reached out to the service for more information.

This is certainly not the U.S. military’s first foray into APSs for armored vehicles. The U.S. Army previously integrated the Israeli-designed and combat-proven Trophy APS onto a portion of its M1 Abrams tanks.

TROPHY is the world’s ONLY operational APS (Previous Version – Updated Video Available)

That service is also now in the process of adding another Israeli-developed APS, Iron Fist, onto at least some of its Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The Army’s version of Iron Fist, now designated as the XM251, is also set to be fitted to next-generation M1E3 tanks and a planned replacement for the Bradley family, tentatively designated the XM30.

There are other APS designs on the market today that the Marines could have chosen for integration onto the ACV, as well.

As noted, APSs available today are generally designed to neutralize anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons. They typically achieve this through the use of ‘hard-kill’ projectiles designed to destroy targets either using an explosive warhead or via the sheer force of impact. Hard-kill APSs use a mixture of sensors, which can include small-form-factor radars and electro-optical/infrared cameras, to cue those interceptors to engage incoming threats.

From when the Marines first announced the selection of BAE’s ACV back in 2018, TWZ has noted that an APS could provide the vehicles with a valuable extra layer of defense against anti-armor missiles and rockets. More capable infantry anti-armor weapons continue to be developed and proliferate globally. Those threats present additional challenges in beach landing scenarios for amphibious vehicles like the ACV, which move much more slowly in the water than they do on land.

The threat that drones pose, and to armored vehicles in particular, which TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for years, has also now been fully rammed into the public consciousness. This is thanks largely to the stark visuals of tanks and other vehicles being attacked by uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) that emerge on a daily basis now from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

A Ukrainian drone from the 79th Air Assault Brigade drops a 40mm HEDP grenade on a Russian UR-77 Meteorit, causing a catastrophic payload explosion. pic.twitter.com/SsaQCKXsNL

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 14, 2023

Drones are an ever-more common and still evolving threat across a growing number of conflict zones worldwide. First-person view (FPV) type kamikaze drones controlled via fiber optic cable have become a particular point of concern, since they are impervious to radio frequency jamming. In turn, this has already prompted the development of a variety of active and passive countermeasures for armored and unarmored vehicles. We will come back to this in a moment.

TWZ has previously laid out a detailed case specifically for using hard-kill APSs to provide added counter-drone defense for armored vehicles. The Israeli firms behind Trophy and Iron Fist have both now notably demonstrated the ability of their respective systems to defeat uncrewed aerial threats in certain envelopes, as can be seen in the videos below. It should be noted that Trophy, Iron Fist, and other hard-kill APSs have a limited number of engagement opportunities and are not really intended to defeat large volumes of threats simultaneously, such as drones attacking in swarms.

Trophy® APS – The land maneuver enabler

Iron Fist APS | Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles

When it comes to the APS capability now planned for Marine ACVs, “that is not going to be the end-all, be-all,” Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ Program Manager, said today. “We’re constantly looking at what the next generation of APS is and how we can get that onto the platform in a lightweight form factor.”

Melkonian also highlighted other potential counter-drone and more general survivability upgrades that could be on the horizon for ACV. This could include the integration of directed energy weapons and some form of added overhead protection. Top-down attacks on vehicles where the armor is typically thinnest can be very threatening, in general.

As an aside, the Army has already been working to acquire hundreds of Top Attack Protection (TAP) add-on armor systems for installation on its M1 Abrams tanks and other armored vehicles. This reflects an expanding global trend in the integration of so-called ‘cope cage’ type armor around the turrets and other areas of armored and unarmored vehicles, primarily to protect against drone attacks. The first cope cages appeared on Russian tanks in the lead-up to the all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This kind of armor does present tradeoffs, including the potential to interfere with other capabilities, such as APSs.

Improved “situational awareness, that’s kind of a gateway to counter-UAS, in terms of the ability to sense your environment,” Melkonian also noted today while talking about other possible upgrades for the ACV. “Take all that video on board and then be able to feed that into [a] counter-UAS system.”

Melkonian highlighted several other areas of interest where the Marines are looking to improve the ACV’s capabilities. His list included things like reducing the vehicle’s signatures to make it harder for enemies to spot, improving its mobility while in the water, and upgrades to just help keep everything inside dry.

“Marines operate in very humid, very difficult environments,” he explained. “The ability to dehumidify the vehicles is a critical enabler, being able to improve the maintenance strategy and keeping [sic] those components running for as long as they need to.”

Broadly speaking, the Marines are interested in new “lightweight solutions, advanced technology, and anything that’s going to be marinized. It must be marinized,” he added. “I can’t tell you how many solutions have been picked, and that’s one of the first questions we ask, and sometimes the solutions are designed for a marinized environment, sometimes they’re not. Marines go where no one else goes, and we’ve got to be able to make sure that our capabilities can support their needs.”

The core marinization requirement will apply to the APS integration just like any other upgrades for Marine ACVs.

Altogether, the addition of active protection systems looks to be just one important upgrade for the Marine Corps’ ACV fleet now on the horizon.

Eric Tegler contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Over the course of a nearly two-month old war with Israel, Hezbollah has been increasing its use of fiber-optic controlled first-person view (FPV) drones against Israeli troops and vehicles, something we were among the first to note. Now, it appears that Israel is resorting to the use of anti-drone netting on its vehicles to help protect them from the one-way attack drones. These attacks are occurring even amid an ongoing, though extremely fragile, ceasefire.

A video emerged Wednesday on social media showing an Israeli vehicle festooned with the netting, draped like a soccer goal from metal arms extending out and above. The idea, as we have reported in the past, is that drones will get caught up in the nylon or mesh metal nets and become disabled, or the nets will help keep the drones far enough from the occupants before exploding to keep them from being killed. The latter is a far more limited scenario and depends on the vehicle type and the warhead on the drone. Based on the video we are seeing, the level of protection netting can provide passengers in the open-top Israeli vehicle if a trapped drone’s warhead were to detonate is likely very little.

The video began to circulate amid growing controversy in Israel over what is perceived as the IDF’s inability to counter the Hezbollah FPV drone threat. The frustration reached a new level over the weekend, after an Israeli soldier was killed and six were wounded by a Hezbollah drone. A followup attack was launched while the IDF was medevacing the wounded, narrowly missing the helicopter.

You can see the drone narrowly miss the helicopter in the following video. 

“The attack laid bare a growing vulnerability: the Israel Defense Forces’ lack of preparedness for first-person view (FPV) drones in Lebanon, which have been an increasingly prominent weapon in Hezbollah’s arsenal during the current fighting,” the Times of Israel reported on Monday. “The Israel Defense Forces has reported dozens of drone-related injuries in recent weeks, though most were minor. Sunday’s attack marked the first fatal FPV drone strike on Israeli forces.”

“Yet the emergence of fiber optic-guided drones should not have come as a surprise,” the paper highlighted. The reason is what we noted in our previous story about this issue. The militant Lebanese group has used FPV drones against Israel since 2024 and they have been widely used by both sides in the Ukraine war for several years, as well as in other conflicts zones around the globe.

These strikes have become more prevalent the deeper Israel went into southern Lebanon. Videos of these recent attacks have been showing up on social media.

Hezbollah conducted more fiber-optic FPV strikes on Israeli vehicles in Lebanon, including two ‘Merkava’ Mk.4 tanks, a D9 Caterpillar armored bulldozer, and what appears to be a rare ‘Namer’ heavy IFV equipped with a turret mounting a 30 mm Bushmaster Mk 2 cannon.
1/ https://t.co/ms2nagNHrD pic.twitter.com/WDs6M3SpwW

— Roy🇨🇦 (@GrandpaRoy2) April 5, 2026

Moreover, Israeli Merkava tanks began sporting metal additions on top of vehicles meant to deflect top-down attacks from drones during the conflict in Gaza two years ago, which you can read more about here. Some of those tanks that have come under attack recently have been observed with them as well. So Israel has been working to deal with the evolving FPV drone threat, on some level, for some time and it is not alone in struggling with it. Most militaries in the world face the possibility of this same vexing threat with no clear blanket countermeasure to deal with it.

Israeli military officials acknowledge that the IDF still lacks an effective counter to fiber-optic-guided drones, the Times of Israel noted, for reasons we have frequently reported. Fiber optic cables mitigate the effect of electronic warfare efforts to jam radio signals as well as some of the limitations imposed by geographical features that can impede the line-of-sight radio connection between drone and operator.

“The IDF initially assessed that Hezbollah’s fiber optic drones could only operate over a few kilometers,” the outlet stated. “Later, the military discovered launches occurring from distances of up to 15 kilometers (nine miles).”

“The gap was underscored on April 11, when the Defense Ministry’s Directorate of Defense Research and Development issued a public call for solutions to the threat — nearly two years after such systems first surfaced in Ukraine, and weeks into the current conflict with Hezbollah,” according to the Times of Israel. “The Defense Ministry is seeking additional capabilities to address this threat. The purpose of this request is to identify innovative and mature technologies.”

⚡️🇮🇱🇱🇧Times of Israel: Sunday’s Hezbollah drone attack in Taybeh, which killed Sgt. Idan Fooks and wounded six others, has exposed the IDF’s lack of preparedness for first‑person view (FPV) drones, particularly those guided by fibre‑optic cables which are immune to electronic…

— War Monitor (@monitor11616) April 28, 2026

It’s unclear how widespread the use of netting is currently by the IDF in southern Lebanon.

“The issue of drones carrying fiber-optic cables is currently a threat without a clear solution,” a high-ranking IDF official, who just returned from Lebanon, told us. “What’s been shown in the video seems more like an experimental concept rather than something that is already operational in the field.”

“In practice, forces are using various improvised solutions—fishing nets, camouflage nets, even soccer nets, along with drills involving small-arms fire at drones,” he added. “However, I personally haven’t seen the specific net system mentioned being used on the ground yet.”

The official said someone from the IDF’s ground forces research and development team told him that the conclusion in the military is that “this solution is highly problematic. It allows the lower parts of the vehicle to remain exposed, areas that the net doesn’t cover. The likely next step for the adversary would be to detonate the drone at a distance from the net, causing shrapnel to disperse toward the forces.”

In a post on X Tuesday, Israeli military journalist Doron Kadosh said the issue of how to deal with Hezbollah FPV drones “took up significant volume in [Monday]’s discussion at the IDF’s senior command forum at Ramat David. The commander of the 282nd Artillery Brigade, which is currently fighting in Lebanon, Col. G., told the commanders: ‘The drone threat is a significant operational challenge that we’re dealing with. We need to think about how to organize better against this threat.’”

IDF combat unit commanders fighting in Lebanon “now express great frustration with the drone threat and the few tools the IDF has to counter them,” Kadosh added. “‘There’s not much you can do about it,’ says a commander currently fighting in Lebanon. The briefing the forces receive boils down to— ‘Stay alert, and if you spot a drone—shoot at it.’”

Some IDF units “have already begun developing independent responses to the threat—for example, nets deployed over positions, houses, and windows—so that the drone gets caught in the net and doesn’t hit its target,” Kadosh continued. “This is an improvised response; we’ve started deploying it with some of the forces, but it’s far from sufficient,” an officer currently fighting in Lebanon told the reporter. This would follow exactly what we saw in Ukraine, as both sides looked to improvised forms of protection from incoming drones, leading to rapid experimentation and many dead ends.

הבוקר אצל @efitriger:

איום רחפני הנפץ שמאתגר את כוחות צה״ל בדרום לבנון בשורת התקפות יומיומיות של חזבאללה:

הסוגיה תפסה נפח משמעותי גם בדיון פורום הפיקוד הבכיר של צה״ל אתמול ברמת דוד. מפקד חטיבת התותחנים 282 שנלחמת כעת בלבנון, אל״ם ע׳, אמר למפקדים: ״איום הרחפנים הוא אתגר מבצעי… pic.twitter.com/jiSGrSEBGH

— דורון קדוש | Doron Kadosh (@Doron_Kadosh) April 28, 2026

Despite the limitations, this netting has become fairly common in Ukraine, with both sides using netting over vehicles, buildings and miles and miles of roadway to provide safer corridors of travel.

About anti-FPV road net tunnels:

“Thousands of kilometers of equipped anti-drone corridors block the main logistical routes all the way to the forward positions
The goal is to ensure security up to a depth of 100 km from the contact line.”
6/ https://t.co/Avipifv6Fr pic.twitter.com/ES7gq20lln

— Roy🇨🇦 (@GrandpaRoy2) April 29, 2026

As we noted in our last piece on the growing FPV threat to Israeli forces, active protection systems (APS) on armored vehicles are being adapted to provide hard-kill counter-drone protection. These systems use sensors to detect incoming rocket-propelled grenades, missiles, and other projectiles, and fire projectiles to hit them before they strike the vehicle. Israel is a major pioneer in the APS space, with systems being deployed for decades, but just how soon it can upgrade existing systems, such as Iron Fist, for this application isn’t clear. Also, this doesn’t help many lighter vehicles that do not have APS capabilities. Still, it is one bright spot of hope of creating a defense against fiber optic FPVs, at least for lower volume attacks, although these are also very costly systems.

Iron Fist APS | Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles

Regardless, we are likely to see more Israeli vehicles equipped with nets and other forms of passive protection in the coming days, and likely more advanced countermeasures if the war grinds on for a prolonged period.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com