U.S. Army Develops Top Attack Protection Kits to Shield Vehicles from Overhead Drone Threats

The U.S. Army is seeking to enhance the survivability of its tracked combat vehicles by introducing new armor systems designed to counter the growing threat of overhead drone attacks. This initiative, outlined in the Army’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request, proposes the acquisition of over 1,500 Top Attack Protection (TAP) kits. These passive add-on armor systems aim to mitigate the vulnerabilities of armored vehicles to loitering munitions, first-person view (FPV) drones, and other aerial threats that have become increasingly prevalent in modern warfare.

The TAP systems are intended to be installed on a wide range of tracked vehicles, particularly those expected to operate at the forward edge of battle. The armor is strategically placed over crew compartments and hatches, complementing the base vehicle armor to reduce the impact of top-down attacks. According to the Army’s budget documents, TAP is most effective against Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) and Shaped Charge Jets, both of which are capable of penetrating traditional armor configurations.

The urgency of this development is underscored by battlefield experiences in Ukraine, where both Russian and Ukrainian forces have suffered significant losses due to drone strikes. Visual evidence and open-source intelligence have documented the destruction of thousands of armored vehicles, including tanks, by drones capable of bypassing conventional frontal armor. These losses have prompted both sides to adopt improvised and later standardized overhead protection measures, such as “cope cages”—metal structures mounted atop turrets to disrupt incoming munitions.

The U.S. Army’s TAP initiative appears to draw from these battlefield adaptations. While the exact design of the TAP kits has not been publicly disclosed, it is likely that they will incorporate elements similar to cope cages, potentially enhanced with explosive reactive armor (ERA) tiles. Ukrainian modifications to U.S.-supplied M1 Abrams tanks, for example, have included ERA tiles and additional armor plating on upper surfaces, suggesting a possible direction for TAP implementation.

In addition to TAP, the Army’s Vehicle Protection System (VPS) package includes other survivability enhancements. These include Laser Warning Receivers (LWRs), which alert crews to targeting by laser-guided weapons, and Signature Management Paint (SMP), which reduces the thermal visibility of vehicles. Together, these systems represent a layered approach to vehicle protection, integrating passive, reactive, and electronic countermeasures.

The Army has allocated approximately $92 million for the procurement and installation of TAP kits on 1,528 vehicles. This is part of a broader $107 million VPS investment that also supports the deployment of LWRs and SMP across multiple platforms. The TAP kits are expected to be tailored to each vehicle type, taking into account differences in base armor and crew compartment layout.

This initiative complements existing active protection systems (APS) such as the Israeli-designed Trophy system, which has been integrated into some Abrams tanks since 2017. Trophy uses radar to detect incoming threats and launches countermeasures to neutralize them before impact. A newer version of Trophy reportedly includes capabilities to address top-down threats, including drones, further enhancing the Army’s defensive posture.

The decision to pursue TAP systems reflects a broader recognition that traditional armor configurations are insufficient against evolving threats. The proliferation of inexpensive, commercially available drones has democratized access to precision-guided munitions, challenging assumptions about air superiority and battlefield dominance. As a result, armored vehicles must now contend with threats from above that were previously considered secondary.

The Army’s move to institutionalize overhead protection through TAP kits marks a shift from ad hoc solutions to standardized, scalable defenses. It also signals an acknowledgment of the changing character of warfare, where technological adaptation is essential to maintaining operational effectiveness. While the effectiveness of TAP systems will depend on their final design and integration, their development represents a proactive step toward addressing a critical vulnerability in modern armored warfare.

In the evolving landscape of modern warfare, the threat posed by drones—ranging from small commercial quadcopters to loitering munitions—has prompted militaries to explore a spectrum of defensive strategies. Among these, two prominent approaches have emerged: passive armor-based protection systems like the U.S. Army’s Top Attack Protection (TAP) kits, and active sensor-integrated weapon systems that employ autocannons and advanced targeting technologies. Each method offers distinct advantages and limitations, shaped by operational context, cost, and technological complexity.

Combat armored vehicles equipped with 30 mm or 40 mm cannons, often integrated into remote weapon stations (RWS) or modular turrets, provide a proactive defense against aerial threats. These systems typically include electro-optical sensors, radar, and fire control software capable of detecting, tracking, and engaging drones at varying altitudes and speeds. For instance, platforms like the Moog Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform (RIwP) and CTAI’s 40 mm airburst munitions are designed to neutralize both small UAVs and larger loitering munitions at ranges up to several kilometers.

The advantages of such sensor-cannon systems include:

• Real-time threat engagement: These systems can detect and destroy drones before they reach effective strike range, reducing the likelihood of damage to the vehicle or surrounding units.

• Multi-role capability: Cannons and sensors can engage both aerial and ground targets, offering flexibility in dynamic combat environments.

• Scalability and modularity: Many systems are designed to be platform-agnostic, allowing integration across different vehicle types.

• Precision and lethality: Airburst munitions, such as the 40 mm A3B round, disperse tungsten pellets in a timed pattern, increasing the probability of intercepting fast-moving drones.

However, these systems also present challenges:

• High cost and complexity: Advanced sensors, fire control systems, and guided munitions significantly increase procurement and maintenance costs.

• Power and space requirements: These systems demand substantial onboard power and space, potentially limiting their use on lighter platforms.

• Limited magazine depth: Unlike passive systems, active defenses can exhaust their ammunition, especially during swarm attacks.

In contrast, passive TAP armor kits offer a fundamentally different approach. Rather than intercepting drones mid-flight, TAP systems aim to mitigate the effects of a successful strike by reinforcing vulnerable areas—particularly the top surfaces of vehicles. This method draws from battlefield improvisations such as “cope cages” and reactive armor tiles, which have proven effective in reducing the lethality of top-down attacks in conflicts like Ukraine.

The advantages of passive TAP systems include:

• Cost-effectiveness: TAP kits are relatively inexpensive to produce and install compared to sensor-based weapon systems.

• Simplicity and reliability: With no moving parts or electronic components, passive armor is less prone to failure and requires minimal maintenance.

• Compatibility: TAP kits can be retrofitted onto a wide range of existing platforms without significant redesign.

• Continuous protection: Unlike active systems that may be overwhelmed or depleted, passive armor provides persistent defense regardless of engagement frequency.

Yet, passive systems also have limitations:

• No threat neutralization: TAP does not prevent drone strikes; it only reduces their impact after detonation.

• Limited adaptability: Passive armor cannot respond to evolving drone tactics or new munitions types in real time.

• Weight burden: Additional armor increases vehicle weight, potentially affecting mobility and fuel efficiency.

Ultimately, the choice between active sensor-cannon systems and passive TAP defenses is not binary. Many modern militaries are pursuing integrated solutions that combine both approaches. Passive armor provides a last line of defense, while active systems offer preemptive engagement capabilities. This layered defense strategy reflects a broader shift toward multi-domain survivability, where vehicles are equipped to detect, deter, and withstand a diverse array of threats from all vectors.