Plasan Unveils New Vehicle Survivability Armor to Protect Crews From Mines, RPGs, EFPs and Top Attacks.

Israeli armor specialist Plasan has presented three vehicle survivability systems at Eurosatory 2026 in Paris, using a company video released for the June 15-19 exhibition to show how LAPS, ATHENA, and TAPS are designed to keep armored vehicles and crews alive after mines, anti-armor weapons, and top-attack munitions strike. The focus is not on added firepower but on combat endurance, giving APCs, IFVs, and tactical vehicles a better chance of staying mobile and mission-capable under modern battlefield threats.

LAPS targets mine-blast injuries, ATHENA addresses side-impact threats such as RPGs, EFPs, penetrators, and fragments, while TAPS is aimed at roof-attack bomblets and other overhead dangers. Together, the systems reflect a wider shift toward lighter, mission-focused protection that improves survivability without simply adding thicker armor, reducing the burden on mobility, fuel use, and deployability.

Related topic: FN Herstal Unveils FN MAG Tactical Long Rail Machine Gun for Thermal and Night Vision Optics.

Plasan presents LAPS, ATHENA, and TAPS, three armored vehicle survivability systems designed to reduce casualties from mine blasts, RPGs, EFPs, kinetic penetrators, artillery fragments, and top-attack munitions (Picture source: Plasan).

The most technically significant system shown in the video is ATHENA, or Advanced Thickening Energetic Armour. Despite the name, Plasan describes it as a non-explosive reactive armor system, meaning it is intended to produce a dynamic defeat effect without the hazards associated with explosive reactive armor tiles. The structure combines composite armor with an expanding interlayer that reacts at the moment of impact. Against a shaped-charge jet from an RPG or anti-armor warhead, the relevant physical objective is not to “stop” the jet as a solid object, but to disturb its coherence, alignment, and penetration path before it reaches the hull wall and spall liner.

The threat set claimed for ATHENA is broad: PG-7 and PG-9 type rocket-propelled grenades, shaped-charge jets, selected explosively formed penetrators, and kinetic long-rod penetrators associated with STANAG 4569 Level 5 and Level 6 threats. In practical procurement terms, this puts ATHENA in the protection band relevant to armored vehicles exposed to 25 mm and 30 mm class automatic cannon fire, not only handheld anti-tank weapons. ATHENA has also been described as tested against 30/35 mm kinetic-energy long rods and may provide protection up to STANAG 4569 Level 6+ when combined with the vehicle’s base armor and passive add-on armor.

The engineering trade-off is weight versus defeat mechanism. Indicative ATHENA module thickness has been placed between 100 and 300 mm, with areal density between 200 and 300 kg/m², although those values should not be read as fixed because each module is sized for a vehicle zone and a customer threat catalogue. This is important because a turret front, lower side wall, upper side wall, and skirt area do not face the same probability of impact, angle, or threat velocity. A modular outer armor layer also allows localized replacement after a hit rather than depot-level structural repair, provided the underlying armor has not been compromised.

Compared with explosive reactive armor, the non-explosive character of ATHENA has tactical implications beyond logistics. Explosive tiles can create risk for infantry operating close to a vehicle during urban combat, convoy escort, breaching, or dismounted movement alongside an infantry fighting vehicle. ATHENA’s approach is intended to limit collateral fragmentation and reduce restrictions on transport, storage, and maintenance. That does not make the system a substitute for active protection against anti-tank guided missiles, but it gives vehicle designers another layer between passive armor and hard-kill interception.

LAPS, or Leg Active Protection System, addresses a different casualty mechanism: lower-limb injury during mine or IED blast. Plasan’s own material states that the system is integrated within the energy-attenuating seat structure, detects a blast event within milliseconds, and lifts the passenger’s legs before floor impact. The aim is specific and measurable: reduce tibia and lower-limb injury caused when the floor deforms upward or accelerates after an underbelly explosion. This matters because mine strikes are frequently followed by small-arms fire, RPG attack, or drone observation; soldiers who cannot stand or dismount become casualties at precisely the moment the unit must recover from the ambush.

The value of LAPS is also architectural: conventional underbelly protection often combines a V-shaped hull, layered blast deflectors, a decoupled or floating floor, foot pads, and energy-attenuating seats. A floating-floor approach can add 120 to 150 mm of vehicle height, which then increases armor surface area and mass. LAPS has been tested against underbelly charges up to 15 kg TNT equivalent, with additional testing planned at 20 kg. Those figures indicate that Plasan is positioning LAPS for serious armored vehicle integration rather than as a comfort or seat accessory.

TAPS, the Top Attack Protection System, completes the logic of the video by addressing the roof. Plasan describes it as an add-on system for upper vehicle surfaces against submunition bomblets, kinetic threats, and artillery fragments. It has been described as a light upper-surface protection layer fitted above passive armor, with a weight of about 17 kg/m². This is not a complete answer to loitering munitions or FPV drones, but it is relevant against fragments, bomblets, and roof-impact effects that exploit the thinner upper armor of many armored fighting vehicles.

The operational point is that Plasan is not presenting one protection answer, but a compartmentalized survivability architecture: LAPS for the vertical blast path from below, ATHENA for side and frontal anti-armor impacts, and TAPS for upper-surface attack. For armies modernizing legacy armored personnel carriers or buying new infantry fighting vehicles, the procurement question is not whether any single system prevents every kill mechanism. It is whether these systems reduce specific casualty and mobility-loss pathways enough to preserve combat power after first contact, especially in environments shaped by mines, RPGs, EFPs, drones, artillery fragments, and top-attack munitions.

Explore More Defense News

• Land Defense News
• Naval Defense News
• Defense Aerospace News