Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles

The use of modern technology will allow the crews of armored vehicles to the highest level. situational awareness, management effectiveness of intelligence and weapons. Sharing intelligence with both subunit ground vehicles and other combat units of the battlefield will further increase the effectiveness of their joint operations. However, these measures are not exhaustive in terms of providing armored vehicles with intelligence information.

Aviation support for ground forces - Mi-28NM, Ka-52 combat helicopters and Su-25 attack aircraft of the Russian Armed Forces

Limited visibility

Air reconnaissance assets will always have an advantage over ground based, at least for the reason that the range of ground equipment is limited by curvature of the surface, natural (mountains, hills, forests) and artificial (buildings and structures) obstacles. Accordingly, the worse the review - the more uneven terrain, green spaces, buildings, the greater the threat this terrain poses to ground forces. This is confirmed by numerous local conflicts, when the greatest loss of armored vehicles carried in the mountains or during the storming of settlements. In the absence of advanced reconnaissance, armored vehicles can only rely on high reaction rate on the attack and its ability to “take a punch”.

Proposals for the destruction of cities by massive artillery strikes or even nuclear weapons hardly worth considering seriously, because it may be unacceptable for political and ethical reasons. In addition, a situation may arise when the enemy carried out an operation to seize the city, in which case the non-evacuated population would become his “human shield”.

At the moment, the best solution is the combined actions of infantry and armored vehicles, but this is largely reduces the mobility of ground forces (it is easy to imagine how much the speed of movement of the columns will decrease when accompanied by their infantry).

Air Force can provide additional intelligence information to the ground forces, but their priorities will always be shifted towards solving their own tasks, while manned vehicles operating at low altitude and low speed are extremely vulnerable to enemy fire from both small arms and weapons. and from man-portable air defense systems. In other words, to ensure continuous air support of the ground forces of the Air Force will not be able to at all desire, and the ability of aviation to detect a disguised enemy will be limited by the height and speed of the flight of the aircraft. In addition, air support is more effective against enemy armored vehicles than against dispersed and disguised manpower.

In fact, what they usually like to compare Tanks the armed forces of the countries of the world, that is, a “tank-against-tank” confrontation, can be considered the least likely scenario of a military conflict, since the main threat to the tanks is precisely aviation and the masked enemy manpower with anti-tank weapons.

UAV for tank

A distinctive feature of the armed forces of the XXI century is their saturation of unmanned and remotely-piloted aircraft (UAVs and UAVs), ground, surface and underwater robotic complexes.

The tasks of unmanned and remotely-manned complexes range from actions in the interests of individual servicemen, launched for the UAV from a Black Hornet micro-helicopter, to solving strategic tasks with extremely complex systems such as the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk or the Russian submarine “Submodon” ".

Black Hornet Mini-UAV (Black Hornet) and Strategic Reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk

Mini-UAV Black Hornet

In the interests of armored vehicles, small, relatively low-altitude UAVs with long duration of flight can carry out reconnaissance, such as, for example, the Corsair UAV, developed by JSC Luch. The possibility of a long stay in the air will allow the UAV to “hang” over the battlefield, promptly providing intelligence to the ground forces. The survival of the UAV should be ensured by their low visibility in the radar, infrared and optical range.

UAV "Corsair"

Features:
- length - 4,2 m .;
- Wingspan - 6,5 m .;
- height - 1,2 m .;
- maximum take-off weight - 200 kg .;
- cruising flight speed - 120 km \ h;
- maximum flight speed - 150 km \ h;
- maximum flight distance - 120 km .;
- maximum flight altitude - 5100 m .;
- flight time - 10 hour .;
- Additional equipment - "All-seeing eye", "Battle space".



UAV "Corsair"

Nevertheless, despite all the benefits that can be brought to the UAV type "Corsair" they can not be considered the solution to all problems in providing armored vehicles with intelligence information. Such UAVs can act in the interests not of each specific unit of armored vehicles, but only in the interests of a group of armored vehicles. At the same time, the high rate of change of the situation on the battlefield can make the intelligence provided by the UAV obsolete even when it is transmitted in real time.

UAV on the tank

The miniaturization of the UAV allows you to consider the possibility of placing them directly on the tank. In particular, the option of placing such a UAV on armored vehicles of the Armata platform is being considered. The drone must take off with a special mount on the body and return to it. The UAV control and its power supply should be carried out using a flexible cable. The development of the Pterodactyl UAV for the Armata platform is carried out by the Aviation Robotic Systems Department of the MAI.

Another similar complex is a quadrocopter (hexacter / octacopter) type UAV, first introduced in 2016 year and intended for use in armored vehicles as a highly mobile reconnaissance vehicle.

UAV "Whirlwind" on a flexible cable above the armored vehicle

Given the pace at which the quadcopter type UAV market is growing, it can be assumed that their design will be rapidly improved. Therefore, the emergence of this type of UAV as part of the standard intelligence equipment of armored vehicles can only be considered a matter of time.

Drones, presented at the II scientific and practical conference on UAV issues, held by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

UAV production of Israeli MIC

It can be assumed that the “tank” UAV will differ from its civilian counterparts in a reinforced design. Providing power to the UAV via a flexible cable will increase the drive power and capacity, which can be used to increase the security of the UAV from fragments and collisions with obstacles. In case of cable breakage or the appearance of the need to go beyond its length, the UAV should be equipped with backup batteries for 5-10 flight minutes and a backup radio channel for data exchange.

In the previous material we said that improving situational awareness, optimizing the ergonomics of the crew cabs and using high-speed guidance drives would allow one of the crew members to be abandoned without loss of combat effectiveness. In this case, you can combine the position of commander and gunner. However, the emergence of UAVs as part of armored reconnaissance assets requires a separate operator to control it. It is on the commander of the armored vehicle that this task should be assigned. The expanded overview, which the UAV will provide to the commander of the armored vehicle, will allow him to timely detect targets hidden by terrain, natural or artificial barriers, and mark their position on a digital map of the terrain.

This article does not consider ground-based robotic systems, since from the point of view of situational awareness, they will not give the armored vehicles significant advantages, and the implementation of existing solutions raises certain questions. Perhaps we will return to the ground reconnaissance and combat robotic complexes in a separate material.

The influence of the UAV on the tactics of armored vehicles

In addition to the early detection of the enemy, "eyes in the air" will allow armored vehicles to use weapons outside the zone of visibility of ground reconnaissance assets. The main armament of armored vehicles operating directly on the battlefield (we do not yet consider artillery and various missile systems) is designed to hit targets with direct fire, but it can also be used to effectively defend targets, consider several options:

1. When an armored vehicle moves in urban development, the commander, using a UAV, finds sheltered rocket launchers on the upper floors of the building, waiting for an opportunity to attack from the rear hemisphere. Gunner using DUMV with a caliber gun from mm 30 can destroy rocket launcher calculations using projectiles with a contact fuse or remote blasting on the trajectory, or armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles (BOPS) capable of penetrating the walls of most modern buildings with the formation of a field of secondary attack elements (brick and concrete chips).

2. When driving over rough terrain, with the help of a UAV, an ATGM calculation was discovered, hidden from the main assets of the armored reconnaissance by a natural barrier. Depending on the distance to the target, it may be hit by projectiles of rapid-fire cannons or a tank gun with remote disruption on a trajectory or an anti-tank missile with a missile also with the implementation of a remote disruption mode on a trajectory.

3. When driving in urban development UAV detected firing point or armored vehicle of the enemy, located around the corner or on the other side of the building. In this case, the option of defeating the target of the BOPS tank gun can be considered. According to some reports, when firing a tank guard in the end of the building, he punches him to the fourth entrance. Theoretically, this allows you to hit lightly armored targets, and possibly tanks (in side projections) placed behind the building. Of course, this will require tests to confirm the possibility of hitting targets behind an obstacle in terms of energy and the accuracy of hitting the projectile after flying through a building. In an alternative embodiment, the armored vehicle is put forward to defeat the target from the side that is worse controlled by the enemy (the weapons and observation devices are turned away).

Shooting for the horizon

In addition to weapons intended for direct fire shooting, armored vehicles can also be equipped with weapons capable of hitting an enemy beyond direct line of sight. In this case, there are only two options for its use - external target designation or target designation from the own UAV of the armored vehicle. Obviously, the second option significantly increases the ability of armored vehicles to attack remote targets.

Guided high-explosive fragmentation (RP) projectiles can be used as weapons of a tank for hitting targets out of sight, which can be easily adapted for 125 caliber mm guns. In case of adopting a 152 caliber mm gun from it, existing Krasnopole guided artillery shells (UAS) with a range of about 25 km can be used.

UAS "Krasnopol-M2" with a laser homing system developed by AO "KBP"

From the armament of infantry combat vehicles (BMP), anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) of the Kornet type can be used with a firing range of up to 10 km or the promising Hermes long-range ATGM. Of course, for the use of the above ammunition, the UAV must be equipped with the appropriate equipment.

Anti-tank missile complex "Kornet" developed by JSC "KBP"

Perspective ATGM "Hermes". Based on the appearance of the prototype models of the ATGM, it can be assumed that it combines the technology of the missiles of the Pantsir anti-aircraft missile-cannon complex (ZPRK) and Krasnopol, on at least one of the missile variants.

Another model of weapons that allows to fire at targets with indirect aiming is mortars. The Israeli armed forces successfully use a 60 mm caliber mortar as part of the Merkava tank armament. The implementation of automated systems based on small-caliber mortars in combination with the capabilities of the UAV for reconnaissance of targets can be an effective solution to combat some types of targets.

Mortar Soltam caliber 60-mm, placed on the tank "Merkava", is used to fight the enemy, firing from behind shelters

The question arises, is there any point in using long-range weapons on armored vehicles designed to operate at the forefront of hostilities, in particular on tanks? The answer will definitely be positive. The increase in the range of use of weapons occurs simultaneously with the development of means of concealment and the network-centric principles of command and control of armed forces. Under these conditions, threats to armored vehicles can arise in the immediate vicinity, which requires armor, active protection and high reaction speed, and in the distance, which requires the availability of appropriate weapons, allowing you to “reach” remote targets. It should be borne in mind that equipping armored "front edge" long-range weapons should not become an end in itself to the detriment of the main characteristics.

Hack and predictor Aviator

The presence of a UAV integrated into the design of promising armored vehicles and managed by the commander will potentially make it possible to push the boundaries of review by several tens of kilometers, provide an opportunity to conduct reconnaissance of targets in buildings, beyond natural and artificial obstacles, provide the possibility of using weapons with a long range of fire.

In the next article, we will look at various options for the composition and layout of weapons that can be implemented on advanced armored vehicles.

Comments

[Krasnodar]

Yes, you forget about the tanks in the built-up area - they stand on the outskirts and provide fire support to the infantry. Everything else is true.

[Tuxuu]

As it seems to me, no cable should be, should be for the 2 tank bla, while one is in the air second at the charging station wireless, landing in automatic mode. Charging at 10% battery (or at least 15 minutes of flight) Yes, and sail cable. About the city you are right

[Krasnodar]

Well, yes, cables are badly invented.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Tuxuu

As it seems to me, no cable should be, should be for the 2 tank bla, while one is in the air second at the charging station wireless, landing in automatic mode. Charging at 10% battery (or at least 15 minutes of flight) Yes, and sail cable. About the city you are right

The cable is good if you need to continuously find a drone in the air at a given height and movement according to a given algorithm, for example, in 50 m. In front of an armored vehicle. It can be attached to the drone by an electromagnet, if a load occurs (caught on a wire or a branch), it can instantly unfasten and retract into the coil. And the drone on the machine sits down and magnetizes the contact pad. Another advantage of complete immunity.

But of course, in the future, the cable probably will not. Batteries somehow improved. In the latest models of phones, fast charging is carried out completely in about 10 minutes, something similar can be applied to the drone. And for noise immunity, the radio channel can be duplicated by optical (laser) within the line of sight.

[lucul]

Yes, you forget about tanks in the built-up area

Tanks feel great in built-up areas - you just need to know how to use them.

[Krasnodar]

... yeah.
The tanks just feel great among the many shelters for children with ATGMs, RPGs and other nishtyaks and buns.

[lucul]

The tanks just feel great among the many shelters for children with ATGMs, RPGs and other nishtyaks and buns.

And there is .
Do you need to chew? )))

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

among many shelters for children with anti-tank systems

It is just great. Especially with a properly operating infantry unit and in the presence of a stable connection.

But these "guys with ATGM" in the "built-up area" are experiencing huge problems. First of all, with the choice of firing positions, there is generally a complete trash

[lucul]

It is just great. Especially with a properly operating infantry unit and in the presence of a stable connection.

[Krasnodar]

Well, I will not argue with experts))
Especially on the difficulty of choosing firing positions in tank hazardous areas in a built-up area by calculating anti-tank weapons

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

Especially on the difficulty of choosing firing positions in tank hazardous areas

Uh ... "a tank-hazardous direction in a built-up area"? Is this possible in principle?

[Krasnodar]

Yes ))
Namely - a street with at least two-way traffic, avenue, entrance to the city, square, etc. Read about the assault by the Israelis of Suez, the federals of Grozny, the Red Army of Berlin

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

Yes ))

No. In the "built-up area" the entire area is a "tank-hazardous direction" Completely.

Well, about ATGMs in the "built-up area" .... Once again, the problems of choosing a firing position are gigantic. This is due to the minimum firing range, and with the need to accompany the target after the launch of the missile or when the target is captured by the missile, and with the safety issues of the calculations themselves. In short, even the choice of a position for shooting at a stationary target is a gigantic problem.

[113262a]

There is an RPG for this. Good old! By the way, at ukrov in Aydar to the department, up to 4 RPG7 and EVERYONE has a fly, or even not one. In boyfriends like Sparta, everyone is trained to work with grenade launchers. And fully equipped with them.

[Lopatov]

Quote: 113262

There is an RPG for this. Good old!

And also very problematic in terms of firing in settlements. The small firing range, the inability to fire from the premises, the exceptional danger from the infantry unit that supports the tank.

Quote: 113262

By the way, at ukrov in Aydar to the department, up to 4 RPG7 and EVERYONE has a fly, or even not one.

Far more experienced in this regard, Chechens have never engaged in such nonsense.

[Krasnodar]

Even as they shoot - from roofs, from ruins, from "windows of the so-called not closed shelter", etc.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

More how they shoot

Try to shoot. Infantry, sniper, helicopter pilots are very happy with such tests ...

[Krasnodar]

I wonder how you imagine all this ... especially the joyful infantry during the fighting in the building)).

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

I wonder how you imagine all this

Infantrymen sit on some five-story building, and happily carry out with a machine gun those originals that creep out onto the roofs of other buildings with grenade launchers or ATGMs to "shoot at tanks"

Once again, it’s difficult to choose normal firing weapons for PTS during battles in the village. And therefore, it is quite easy to provide control over possible positions. In the presence of brains.

[Krasnodar]

No. In the "built-up area" the entire area is a "tank-hazardous direction" Completely.

... ...Tank hazardous direction
lane of terrain allowing for massive use by the enemy of tank (armored) troops under the conditions of patency and capacity.
As for cross-country ability - in some Arab regions (and not only), not every car will pass between houses. And massively there you can only get up or get stuck under the rubble of buildings - if you take them down like a bulldozer - 3-4 floors, stone, etc.

Well, about ATGMs in the "built-up area" .... Once again, the problems of choosing a firing position are gigantic. This is due to the minimum firing range, and with the need to accompany the target after the launch of the missile or when the target is captured by the missile, and with the safety issues of the calculations themselves. In short, even the choice of a position for shooting at a stationary target is a gigantic problem.

What is the problem? )))
Choose - a bunch of buildings, a bunch of rooms, a bunch of windows (and not only) a bunch of observers for each + - a wide (tank dangerous direction) road. There are anti-tank systems operating on the principle of firing and forgetting if you care about the safety of settlements, etc. Distances - firing range - from 100 m. To 10 km. In urban conditions, a shot is possible, depending on the layout of the city, for 300-400 meters or more! Therefore, when entering equipment into a hostile n / a, it intersects not along the main streets, but perpendicular to them, which, however, does not save from RPGs, etc. When tanks accompanied by infantry appear, heavy fire from small arms is fired at the soldiers in order to force them to seek shelter - who will pay attention to where the missile was launched from? Moreover, several of these will go to each tank. Once again - the assault on Suez, the assault on Grozny, etc.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

As for cross-country ability - in some Arab regions (and not only), not every car will pass between houses.

A tank will pass 8))))) That's why he, in fact, is a tank.

Quote: Krasnodar

Tank hazardous direction
lane of terrain allowing for massive use by the enemy of tank (armored) troops under the conditions of patency and capacity.

That's it!
What is not clear to you in the phrase you quoted?

Quote: Krasnodar

What is the problem? )))

Awesome. Just go out into the yard, this is enough for the thinking man.

[Krasnodar]

Sitting in a fortification near the building in 90% of cases you will not understand where they shot you from. Well, in the city itself ... oh well, I don’t argue with experienced, experienced people anymore

[Lopatov]

Quote: Krasnodar

Sitting in a fortification near the building

And who makes you "sit in a fortification next to the building" instead of organizing the defense in this very "building"?

Quote: Krasnodar

Well, in the city itself ... oh well, I don’t argue with experienced, experienced people anymore

And rightly so. I do not think that you have experience in military operations in settlements. Therefore, you, in fact, cannot understand the thought that I am trying to convey to you. Choosing a firing position in a settlement is very difficult.

[Krasnodar]

A couple of weeks patrolled the border between Rafah and Egypt in the early 0's. A couple of times to accompany the initiated operations in the built-up area went)). But then there was no serious AT in Gaza - improvised grenades, firing light weapons and mortars at a fortification point, patrols (on armored vehicles), etc., including the kids who ran after the APC and threw improvised grenades, as well as land mines, standing along the patrol path in the so-called "Philadelphia Corridor." Then the Palestinians would have even RPGs 7 - there would have been more losses. Figs you will understand who shoots from where)))))
Although Merkavu in a half-ton high-explosive mine somewhere in Gaza at that time they managed to blow up. Now imagine that there is an attack by armored vehicles in the city itself - it will be launched without obstacles, and in the city itself tanks of the khan, and it’s guaranteed. Yes, and infantry oh how sweet it will be!

[lucul]

Great article, just great. The issue was considered from all sides. Thanks to the timely detection of the enemy, the tank becomes a tank, and not a blind cyclops without an eye.
All modern detection tools require a decent amount of electric energy, and the tank is able to give it out - it means you need to equip it with all the detection tools to the maximum.

[Lopatov]

Question: in the tank the commander controls, the gunner spuds targets, mehan drives the car.

Who is driving the "UAV for the tank"? Who evaluates the information received from the UAV? Where in the tank to shove one more person, weld the box above the engine?

[lucul]

Who is driving the "UAV for the tank"? Who evaluates the information received from the UAV? Where in the tank to shove one more person, weld the box above the engine?

In BMP and armored personnel carriers such a question is not worth it - there are enough people.
And in the tank, yes, you have to think something about it.

[Lopatov]

Quote: lucul

In BMP and armored personnel carriers such a question is not worth it - there are enough people.

On the contrary, there are even fewer people. There is no machine commander, and in fact, the command function has to be performed by the gunner-operator

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Question: in the tank the commander controls, the gunner spuds targets, mehan drives the car.

Who is driving the "UAV for the tank"? Who evaluates the information received from the UAV? Where in the tank to shove one more person, weld the box above the engine?

And what does "Commander governing" mean? In fact, a commander is needed because modern tanks have a problem with a normal view. If this problem is solved, then the commander is essentially not needed, he can combine the work of the gunner. If there is helmet guidance, "transparent armor", an automatic tracking machine, then what is the gunner's job? I saw the target - I gave the command - then everything is automatic.

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

And what does "Commander governing" mean?

This means is driving ... Read the Charter of the 3 part

Quote: AVM

In fact, the commander is needed because in modern tanks there is a problem with a normal view. If this problem is solved, then the commander is essentially not needed, he can combine the work of the gunner.

8))))
The tank is moving. Mehan keeps track of the road. The commander performs the functions of a gunner and targets the enemy's BMP a kilometer from the tank. Well, the enemy's grenade launcher on the right-hand side is in goodness ... He is satisfied, he can shoot, and no one will see him.

We already have a big problem with DUMB on the tank. The commander or uses it, or manages the battle ..... In fact, one person is not enough. And you offer even more complicate the life of the crew.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

And what does "Commander governing" mean?

This means is driving ... Read the Charter of the 3 part

What does the Charter here, when we talk about promising technology? Maybe even cavalry instruction to read? By the way, this is a serious problem for developers in the Russian Federation, when new developments run into existing charters and regulations. Army bureaucracy.

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

In fact, the commander is needed because in modern tanks there is a problem with a normal view. If this problem is solved, then the commander is essentially not needed, he can combine the work of the gunner.

8))))
The tank is moving. Mehan keeps track of the road. The commander performs the functions of a gunner and targets the enemy's BMP a kilometer from the tank. Well, the enemy's grenade launcher on the right-hand side is in goodness ... He is satisfied, he can shoot, and no one will see him.

This was also mentioned in previous materials - displaying the image in a helmet will speed up the perception of the environment several times, and possibly an order of magnitude. DUMV high-speed drives will allow you to work out the defeat of the target several times faster - 180 degrees / sec. against 30-40 now.

And the rocket launcher still has no problems. In order to be guaranteed to notice it with existing instruments, it is necessary to land a platoon of a crew in a tank the size of a BelAZ, each with its own observation device.

One can argue on this issue for a long time, but it is not in vain that Israel, which does not stop fighting at all, is promoting "transparent armor" for armored vehicles and TBPM (Namer).

Quote: Spade

We already have a big problem with DUMB on the tank. The commander or uses it, or manages the battle ..... In fact, one person is not enough. And you offer even more complicate the life of the crew.

Remarkably, they wanted to hide the tankers so that they didn’t have to get out of the armor to shoot from a machine gun, and now it turns out to be a problem ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

What does the Charter

Hello, come ......

Quote: AVM

This was also mentioned in previous materials - displaying the image in a helmet will speed up the perception of the environment several times.

Nothing will "speed up", on the contrary, it will slow down. But it will give you better situational awareness. However, this will not solve the problem of the lack of "man-seconds" for using the UAV.

Quote: AVM

And the rocket launcher still has no problems.

In ... And now not, and you still want his life to improve ....

Quote: AVM

Great, they wanted to hide the tankers

E ...... And what, before the invention of the DUMB, did the tank crew have to get out of armor somewhere to shoot a gun and a machine gun paired with it?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

What does the Charter

Hello, come ......

Charters are adjusted in accordance with the realities of technology and tactics. Dogmatic performance is unlikely to benefit.

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

This was also mentioned in previous materials - displaying the image in a helmet will speed up the perception of the environment several times.

Nothing will "speed up", on the contrary, it will slow down. But it will give you better situational awareness. However, this will not solve the problem of the lack of "man-seconds" for using the UAV.

Improving situational awareness is accelerating the perception of the environment. Turn the observation device with a joystick for a minute until you find a target, or just turn your head?

There will be enough time for only the gunner to look around. The commander will process data from the UAV, more precisely, synthesized data from the UAV and armored vehicle devices. And the UAVs give commands, how to say "high level".

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

And the rocket launcher still has no problems.

In ... And now not, and you still want his life to improve ....

It will be detected in advance from the UAV, if not, then as soon as it protrudes it will find it through the "transparent armor" on a signal from the automation to a thermal target of a certain profile, the weapon will turn in 0,5-1 seconds, what an improvement here ...

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

Great, they wanted to hide the tankers

E ...... And what, before the invention of the DUMB, did the tank crew have to get out of armor somewhere to shoot a gun and a machine gun paired with it?

And from the anti-aircraft 12,7?

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

Charters are adjusted

Exactly. But there they still continue to write about "what it means to command" ...

Quote: AVM

Improving situational awareness is accelerating the perception of the environment.

No.
Improving situational awareness - increasing the amount of information Therefore, there is no "acceleration", on the contrary.
You will read a book in 1000 pages much slower than a magazine in 10

Quote: AVM

It will be detected in advance with the UAV

Yeah .... They say they have already adopted the UN Convention "prohibiting grenade launchers to move"

Quote: AVM

will detect through "transparent armor"

Who will discover? The mechanic is busy, the gunner is busy ... And the commander controls the UAV instead of controlling his own unit.
Is it possible that some of them will distract from the task and see a grenade launcher shot out of the corner of their eyes ... To have time to pronounce a short swear word before death.

Quote: AVM

And from the anti-aircraft 12,7?

Backfill question: why is it called "anti-aircraft"?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

Charters are adjusted

Exactly. But there they still continue to write about "what it means to command" ...

Only you can command in different ways. It's like in programming languages ​​- there is a low level, in machine codes, and there is a high level, when commands are used.

Also with the command. You can chew on the task for an hour, call the coordinates of the target on the radio, or you can direct your eyes to the target and press two buttons — target / type. Time to command is significantly reduced.

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

Improving situational awareness is accelerating the perception of the environment.

No.
Improving situational awareness - increasing the amount of information Therefore, there is no "acceleration", on the contrary.
You will read a book in 1000 pages much slower than a magazine in 10

If reading is an end in itself, then yes, but if Wang needs to understand some information, then it depends on the style of presentation. One will set out the necessary information on 10 sheets, and the other will "pour water" in 1000.

So with the information for the crew. If it is pre-digitized, processed, and submitted in a convenient form, it will be a book on 10 pages with information on 1000 pages. Those. image is mixed, targets are selected and recognized, etc.

And so it turns out that it is best for the crew to remove the review, sit in an armored box, reflect on the impermanence of life ...

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

It will be detected in advance with the UAV

Yeah .... They say they have already adopted the UN Convention "prohibiting grenade launchers to move"

The movement of the radar or other detection devices recognize even faster.

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

will detect through "transparent armor"

Who will discover? The mechanic is busy, the gunner is busy ... And the commander controls the UAV instead of controlling his own unit.
Is it possible that some of them will distract from the task and see a grenade launcher shot out of the corner of their eyes ... To have time to pronounce a short swear word before death.

Any of the above can detect, even out of the corner of the eye, a framed target, indicating the potential type, with a sound signal. It is even possible to unfold the DUMV in automatic mode. It remains only to press the "fire" button.

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

And from the anti-aircraft 12,7?

Backfill question: why is it called "anti-aircraft"?

ZU-23 is also called that, but its advantages were revealed in a different capacity. Also with the "anti-aircraft machine gun", how to handle high-lying targets? And it can be deployed almost instantly, unlike the turret of a tank with a coaxial machine gun.

By the way, no one forces the commander to use the DUMV, he is "anti-aircraft", even if he uses it only for air threats, what are the problems?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: AVM

This was also mentioned in previous materials - displaying the image in a helmet will speed up the perception of the environment several times, and possibly an order of magnitude.

No, it does not. It is possible to see more precisely faster, but it is still impossible to realize what he saw and make a decision much faster.

On the topwar there were articles on this topic, for example, German experiments with the reduction of the crew to two people. Does not work! There are not so many Caesars capable of simultaneously solving seven problems in nature at once. An ordinary person plunges into one or two visible problems and stops responding to the rest (read about the plane crash). And in those ignored here are also critical ..

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Saxahorse

Quote: AVM

This was also mentioned in previous materials - displaying the image in a helmet will speed up the perception of the environment several times, and possibly an order of magnitude.

No, it does not. It is possible to see more precisely faster, but it is still impossible to realize what he saw and make a decision much faster.

On the topwar there were articles on this topic, for example, German experiments with the reduction of the crew to two people. Does not work! There are not so many Caesars capable of simultaneously solving seven problems in nature at once. An ordinary person plunges into one or two visible problems and stops responding to the rest (read about the plane crash). And in those ignored here are also critical ..

All right - experiences. Technique even now even before this has not grown, this is the prospect of the next 10-20 years.

From a jet engine in WWII, too, there was little use, as well as from German cruise and ballistic missiles - a waste of time and money, but what now?

Now we can draw an analogy with lasers and railguns, which many reject because "how many years they have been fiddling about but no good." The technology must mature.

Any technology has its time.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: AVM

Any technology has its time.

Exactly! What you propose can only be realized by a full-fledged AI. Ugh ugh ugh .. I hope it doesn't come to that. We just didn't have enough "Matrix" for complete happiness :(

[region58]

Quote: AVM

It turns out this is a problem ...

[Rvlad]

In no military conflict, not in a single clash, the claimed effectiveness of unmanned vehicles is NOT CONFIRMED! By nobody! Everything that is printed is DESIRABLE and some fantasies. In reality, everything is much tougher and more sober. Particularly surprising is the attempt to hang on the crew (helicopter, tank, or even what object) the task of controlling the reconnaissance drone. Anyone who is really familiar with the peculiarities of the conduct of hostilities, understands that the information load on the crew exceeds its physiological capabilities 6-7 times. And then there are several additional sources of information that are not synchronized either in time or in space ... full atas !!! For this reason, only plans and dreams are everywhere. The article as a collection of desires is not bad ... but that's all))))

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: RVlad

In no military conflict, not in a single clash, the claimed effectiveness of unmanned vehicles is NOT CONFIRMED! By nobody! Everything that is printed is DESIRABLE and some fantasies. In reality, everything is much tougher and more sober. Particularly surprising is the attempt to hang on the crew (helicopter, tank, or even what object) the task of controlling the reconnaissance drone. Anyone who is really familiar with the peculiarities of the conduct of hostilities, understands that the information load on the crew exceeds its physiological capabilities 6-7 times. And then there are several additional sources of information that are not synchronized either in time or in space ... full atas !!! For this reason, only plans and dreams are everywhere. The article as a collection of desires is not bad ... but that's all))))

Information load? This is when the driver BTRom foot taxis, because the car can not see anything? Or because of primitive vision systems, when you need to look at the hour to understand what you see?

This was discussed in the previous article. Optimization of information output, preliminary data analysis. It is called - a person "organizer of actions and not an operator of systems", in my opinion this was worked out in RAH-66.

The UAV does not have to be controlled by a "joystick". Even existing civilian UAVs have the function of tracking a person when he flies after the owner and removes him. And we are talking about a promising technology that can be implemented in 10-20 years, it (UAV) can be primitively given commands of a general level.

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

The UAV does not have to be controlled by a "joystick". Even existing civilian UAVs have the function of tracking a person when he flies after the owner and removes him. And we are talking about a promising technology that can be implemented in 10-20 years, it (UAV) can be primitively given commands of a general level.

It looks like you do not quite understand what it means to "control the UAV."
Firstly, it is a preparation for flight, that is, on the basis of the available intelligence information and the commander’s plan for battle to work out a route for the UAV, a zone of special attention, etc.
Secondly, to control the passage of the route, if necessary, changing it in accordance with the obtained intelligence information.
And thirdly, the most important and most "labor-intensive" thing is to obtain intelligence information, its assessment, interpretation, etc.

That is, in fact, you need at least one person engaged exclusively in the management of UAVs. And there is no such person in the tank.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

The UAV does not have to be controlled by a "joystick". Even existing civilian UAVs have the function of tracking a person when he flies after the owner and removes him. And we are talking about a promising technology that can be implemented in 10-20 years, it (UAV) can be primitively given commands of a general level.

It looks like you do not quite understand what it means to "control the UAV."
Firstly, it is a preparation for flight, that is, on the basis of the available intelligence information and the commander’s plan for battle to work out a route for the UAV, a zone of special attention, etc.
Secondly, to control the passage of the route, if necessary, changing it in accordance with the obtained intelligence information.
And thirdly, the most important and most "labor-intensive" thing is to obtain intelligence information, its assessment, interpretation, etc.

That is, in fact, you need at least one person engaged exclusively in the management of UAVs. And there is no such person in the tank.

First of all, you can simply bring the observation devices higher to see behind hills or other obstacles.

Secondly, what does it mean to control the route? There may be software UAV behavior algorithms:
- fly over the tank;
- fly in 100 m in front of the tank;
- ...
A review of the UAV can be controlled by the same helmets. I pressed and hold the button - you twist your head - the UAV turns (or reconnaissance equipment on it).

Well, for the assessment and interpretation of information, the commander is needed. I pointed my finger at the target, chose the target type from the context menu, and then the gunner would figure it out.

Do not forget + 10-20 years ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

First of all, you can simply bring the observation devices higher to see behind hills or other obstacles.

What for? If this data can easily be obtained from a senior boss?

Quote: AVM

Secondly, what does it mean to control the route?

Means to control. Changing it if necessary.
Changing the speed depending on weather conditions or the speed of movement of their units, changing the height due to the weather and terrain conditions, as well as the enemy’s actions. Changing the route if necessary additional reconnaissance, when changing the tasks of the unit, when changing the general situation on the battlefield ... Well and so on ...

Quote: AVM

Well, to evaluate and interpret information, the commander is needed.

That is what he is busy with. Obtaining this information both from the senior commander, the infantry unit and the neighbors from right to left, and with their own eyes through surveillance devices. He just did not have time to look at the screen transmitting the image from the UAV.

[evgic]

100% true. As an option, the UAV is fully automatic, with AI. But even then it is not entirely clear how the commander will consider the battlefield and the info from the UAV at the same time, make a decision on the conduct of the battle and control the crew. It turns out you need a tank with AI, then the crew is not needed, but a lot of other problems will arise. In general, a drone on a tank is desirable, but not required. Only conduct reconnaissance before the battle, or on the march

[Lopatov]

Quote: evgic

UAV fully automatic, with AI

So far, we do not have an AI capable of guaranteed recognition of any target, including by indirect indications.
And I'm afraid, to such AIs as to Beijing in reverse ...

Quote: evgic

But even then it’s not entirely clear how the commander will consider the battlefield and the info from the UAV at the same time,

Why would he do it? It is easier to have a separate intelligence agency "UAV crew". Which, in fact, will deal with all these things, giving the tank commander already "chewed" information on specific targets, etc.

[Metlik]

Why would he do that?

Tank uavs and "battlefield uavs", let's say, are different in size and capabilities. A large drone will detect large targets, but flying into a house, hovering over a forest, bushes, flying up to a suspicious mound and throwing a grenade on it - all this is a tankodron's job. Perhaps it is better to entrust his control to the gunner.
But the idea of ​​a tank UAV is definitely correct.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Metlik

Tank uav and "battlefield uav", let's say, different in size and capabilities of the apparatus

Yeah. The first is completely useless, and even harmful, because it reduces the likelihood of a tank surviving on the battlefield. The second is very useful.

Quote: Metlik

But the idea of ​​a tank UAV is definitely correct.

Naturally. Like all other ideas that consider the tank as a spherical horse in a vacuum, and not part of the system ...

And the idea of ​​a tank bakery and a tank drilling rig is also "unambiguously correct", isn't it? How will the tankers manage without bread and even more so without water? Everything is in accordance with the concept of full autonomy of the tank, which requires equipping it with a UAV.

[Metlik]

Quote: Spade

All in accordance with the concept of full autonomy of the tank

But, the UAV almost does not increase the mass of the tank, does not require a design change, although it will require additional electronics and will make it more expensive and more complicated. He will give the crew additional opportunities - observing and defeating the enemy, and how to use them is up to the tankers themselves.
I suggested earlier that a UAV is needed first of all for bmpt - to search for weapons, but in the concept of autonomy of the tank, like any armored vehicles, there is nothing wrong. In the context of electronic warfare - to remain without communication and continue the battle is normal.

[Igor Shcherbina]

It is necessary to provide the troops with reconnaissance equipment as much as possible (UAVs) from the platoon level to the battalion, and constantly conduct exercises The enemy troops and their equipment must be destroyed with the help of reconnaissance (UAVs), simply sweeping away artillery is the guarantee of victory.

[Rvlad]

For AVM. You will not see anything with the eyes of the BMP (tank, car), or with the help of UAVs. Alas. Rather, you will only see what 40 saw years ago, 10 years ago, and through 50 years you will see the same thing. Nothing will change. No matter how people try, no one has succeeded in changing physics)))) There is a simple law in philosophy: the negation of negation. For example, as soon as an aircraft (for example) some new properties are given, which allow it to increase combat effectiveness, after a year or two, the air defense completely eliminates these properties to zero and vice versa. Relative combat effectiveness is somehow changing, and the absolute is in place, at the same level. But the price of technology is growing, continuously growing. And if you divide the increase in combat effectiveness by the increase in value, you will see a very sad picture: the unit of increase in combat effectiveness accounts for a fabulous amount of monetary units. It's just business and nothing more. Well, to make you completely understandable, solve a simple puzzle: the instant viewing area from the UAV (from the discharge of those mentioned in the article, the flight height 300 m, the resolution of the onboard optics 1 m / pix) 0.04 sq. km, the required scanning area to form an operational situation for the crew of the BMP 4 ... 6 square. km What is the likelihood that the crew using the UAV will find machine-gunners in ambush, which is located on this square? And how much time will it take for him? I must say: a person sitting, lying, etc. you with this onboard complex will not find, never. IR station is also a weak assistant)))) That's when you solve this problem, you will probably begin to understand what kind of nonsense they wrote in the article. And about optimizing the output of information, generally keep your mouth shut ... the current level of computing technology and the principles of its construction will never allow it.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: RVlad

For AVM. You will not see anything with the eyes of the BMP (tank, car), or with the help of UAVs. Alas. Rather, you will only see what 40 saw years ago, 10 years ago, and through 50 years you will see the same thing. Nothing will change. No matter how people try, no one has succeeded in changing physics)))) There is a simple law in philosophy: the negation of negation. For example, as soon as an aircraft (for example) some new properties are given, which allow it to increase combat effectiveness, after a year or two, the air defense completely eliminates these properties to zero and vice versa. Relative combat effectiveness is somehow changing, and the absolute is in place, at the same level. But the price of technology is growing, continuously growing. And if you divide the increase in combat effectiveness by the increase in value, you will see a very sad picture: the unit of increase in combat effectiveness accounts for a fabulous amount of monetary units. It's just business and nothing more. Well, to make you completely understandable, solve a simple puzzle: the instant viewing area from the UAV (from the discharge of those mentioned in the article, the flight height 300 m, the resolution of the onboard optics 1 m / pix) 0.04 sq. km, the required scanning area to form an operational situation for the crew of the BMP 4 ... 6 square. km What is the likelihood that the crew using the UAV will find machine-gunners in ambush, which is located on this square? And how much time will it take for him? I must say: a person sitting, lying, etc. you with this onboard complex will not find, never. IR station is also a weak assistant)))) That's when you solve this problem, you will probably begin to understand what kind of nonsense they wrote in the article. And about optimizing the output of information, generally keep your mouth shut ... the current level of computing technology and the principles of its construction will never allow it.

Namuta nepoymi what physics dragged philosophy.

I have a different point of view about UAV, electronics and software. About the stupidity of a UAV for armored vehicles write to those who offer it for Almaty. And about the lack of computational tools for the creators of F-35, for example, quite good material: https://habr.com/ru/post/453538/

All that you have written is the so-called "competition of sword and shield", and it will never stop. And yes, this is a business, like almost any human activity. And if we were to argue that we would put a cannon on and tomorrow they would make armor from it, then there is no need to do anything at all, so we would have remained with a stone ax and a club.

[Rvlad]

For AVM. You do not know the principles of operation of aerial reconnaissance means and do not understand the main thing - the physics of the process of collecting, processing and transmitting data: the maximum performance of the on-board optoelectronic complex (OEC) of the UAV is located in the area of ​​flight speed 400 km / h and is equal to almost 4 sq. Km / hour. For what you wrote there, the performance of the OEC UAV is not higher than 1.1 sq. Km / h. This means that an area with a radius of 1.2 km your UAV in clear and clear weather will scan for at least 3 hours if the probability of hitting the instantaneous field of view of the OEC at the location of the desired calculation of a large-caliber machine gun is less than 0.001 (i.e., extremely unlikely). Therefore, while your aerial reconnaissance means find something, the BMP will be hit or destroyed along with the crew. Survival on the battlefield during a combined arms battle of light armored vehicles is 15 minutes, in total !!!! At the same time, the crew will be busy trying to understand what the "magic eye from heaven" sends them over the radio channel, instead of banal fighting and striving to survive)))) Well, against a rebellious unarmed population that has nothing but pitchforks, yes, it will work. Well, what if it rains or, God forbid, fog? What to do? IR will not work. The scattering coefficient of the visible part of the spectrum will be such that OEC will show milk and no mathematics will allow to select a possible target against the background of the underlying surface. No neural network will save the situation. Our "friends" often show how in the mountains or elsewhere they hit IR contrast targets. But it was in ideal conditions and without anti-air defense. Therefore, before rewriting any crap from English-language sites, it would be nice to look through physics ... Now, on your second remark about computing technology and success on the F-35 ... you can tell what dimension the system of differential equations will be, describing the banal process of your transition to an ordinary intersection and how long will it take to solve it with the fastest computer? And this task is solved by you as a biological subject several times every day and without much effort. And modern ground combat is proportionally more difficult in terms of intensity and the number of objects participating in it ... And there is no time reserve. And in air combat there is and the task there is much simpler. Therefore, it is somehow being resolved there. And on earth there is no ... It is you, unfortunately, stir up))) Such material must be submitted either accompanied by a scientific critical analysis, or as a statement of fact. And note: there are a lot of UAV proposals (about 4 thousand samples, different ...), and no more than 500 are in service (all countries have 20-5 in each). Everything else is a banal blizzard ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: RVlad

For AVM. You do not know the principles of operation of aerial reconnaissance means and do not understand the main thing - the physics of the process of collecting, processing and transmitting data: the maximum performance of the on-board optoelectronic complex (OEC) of the UAV is located in the area of ​​flight speed 400 km / h and is equal to almost 4 sq. Km / hour. For what you wrote there, the performance of the OEC UAV is not higher than 1.1 sq. Km / h. This means that an area with a radius of 1.2 km your UAV in clear and clear weather will scan for at least 3 hours if the probability of hitting the instantaneous field of view of the OEC at the location of the desired calculation of a large-caliber machine gun is less than 0.001 (i.e., extremely unlikely). Therefore, while your aerial reconnaissance means find something, the BMP will be hit or destroyed along with the crew. Survival on the battlefield during a combined arms battle of light armored vehicles is 15 minutes, in total !!!! At the same time, the crew will be busy trying to understand what the "magic eye from heaven" sends them over the radio channel, instead of banal fighting and striving to survive)))) Well, against a rebellious unarmed population that has nothing but pitchforks, yes, it will work. Well, what if it rains or, God forbid, fog? What to do? IR will not work. The scattering coefficient of the visible part of the spectrum will be such that OEC will show milk and no mathematics will allow to select a possible target against the background of the underlying surface. No neural network will save the situation. Our "friends" often show how in the mountains or elsewhere they hit IR contrast targets. But it was in ideal conditions and without anti-air defense. Therefore, before rewriting any crap from English-language sites, it would be nice to look through physics ... Now, on your second remark about computing technology and success on the F-35 ... you can tell what dimension the system of differential equations will be, describing the banal process of your transition to an ordinary intersection and how long will it take to solve it with the fastest computer? And this task is solved by you as a biological subject several times every day and without much effort. And modern ground combat is proportionally more difficult in terms of intensity and the number of objects participating in it ... And there is no time reserve. And in air combat there is and the task there is much simpler. Therefore, it is somehow being resolved there. And on earth there is no ... It is you, unfortunately, stir up))) Such material must be submitted either accompanied by a scientific critical analysis, or as a statement of fact. And note: there are a lot of UAV proposals (about 4 thousand samples, different ...), and no more than 500 are in service (all countries have 20-5 in each). Everything else is a banal blizzard ...

All your calculations are complete nonsense. Especially about scanning in 3 hours. For which height, which optics, which sensitivity of the matrix, which optics, with which field of view, what is the scanning speed with which exposure will give an acceptable result? So many difficult questions, and you are going to get by with the calculations of the third class.

"Scientific analysis" is also a very specific thing. I noticed that very often the most delusional statements are justified by mathematics and they try. As in the previous paragraph with your example about scanning at 3 o'clock. Take, for example, the most primitive UAV, with primitive optics, a matrix, and on its basis make calculations, take into account 3-4 parameters out of 30-40 necessary to understand the issue. And in appearance everything is OK.

Amazing. They are developing laser weapons - comments "physics does not allow" (while the same people firmly believe in "Peresvet"), UAVs - "physics does not allow", etc. And when such systems appear in service with Israel or the United States will start looking for "Popov's radio - we were the first, and they stole from us." Preventing claims to "defeatism", during the period of the USSR-USA they stole from each other, now everything is sadder ...

What kind of stupid person will adopt the 4500 thousands of different types of UAVs? And they are not armed with 20 but under a hundred they will be typed, or even more.

And I do not "rewrite" from English-language sites.

[Rvlad]

Mr. Mitrofanov, quieter, pliz. First, these are not 3rd class calculations. And this is not nonsense. These are real results, confirmed by tests at the proving ground. At our Russian training ground. And in hostilities too)))) The probability of detection has nothing to do with the quality of the OEC, it is an integral characteristic that includes the probability that the desired target will fall into the viewing area. The rest relates to the probability of recognition, selection, etc. But if there is no target in the viewport, then what is it to recognize? About 20 it belongs to the type, according to the names, yes, under a hundred. Well, about lasers is a separate topic ... here you are frankly swimming. And they lied about the Cornet. It doesn't work that way ... Please don't be offended, I'm just trying to understand your level of competence. Because, whatever the phrase, then creeps out technical illiteracy or everyday education. And people read you and are led by stupidity ... Take a book by Gossorg "Infrared thermography" read and see that we will never create a hyperboloid of engineer Garin, and not because there are no Popovs or everything was stolen, but because nature cannot be fooled. 3 years ago I met with about the same energetic "specialist" as you, who swore and swore that he would shoot down any UAV with a laser beam. Spent a lot of money on development. Everything is on fire in the hall at a distance of 25 m, metal is being burnt ..., in short, complete horror. They gave him the opportunity to prove in typical real conditions: December, a frosty sunny day, humidity 60%, MDV 20 km, Moscow region, they gave a UAV. Range 0.5 km to the target. Target speed 100 km / h. Failed to shoot down. Two days were tormented, nothing came of it ... If you look at the results of the work of the Americans in this direction, then the picture is exactly the same: only what relates to the model conditions is laid out. And the Chinese have the same thing ... And the same song about UAVs. I'm not going to teach you, it's not interesting to me. But your example shows the entire degree of degradation of national education ... sad

[abc_alex]

And how do you look at the fact that a tank UAV is not an independent unit, but is integrated directly into the tank’s SLA. Cable system with limited mobility. The simplest flight tasks: take-off, hover (quadrocopter) over the machine, ascent to a given height, deviation by a small distance. Such functions can actually be solved at the autopilot level; no crew member management is required.
The collection of information is carried out according to the same algorithms and the same means of the LMS as through the main sighting devices, the UAV only brings the sensors to a certain height to expand the "field of view". A sort of tank periscope. The device does not carry out any independent collection of information, it only changes the amount of data at the input. The received data is adapted and displayed on the standard data output for the commander and the gunner.
Doesn’t fly anywhere, is not controlled by anyone. Hanging over the car and just looking where the sight is directed.

[Rvlad]

This does not work. Firstly, all this somewhere needs to be stored, on the tank or in the tank. There is no place in the tank. Not at all. Secondly, it greatly limits the maneuverability of the tank, i.e. in motion, this will impose severe restrictions. Especially in the forest and in the mountains. Thirdly, the wind near the ground is not a wind at an altitude of 200-300 m. The cable will be solid. Fourth, energy. You can’t take a lot on board. Power supply from the tank with direct current through the cable will require, in addition to the huge coil, the core thickness. Those. a running meter of cable (for a transmission of 10 ... 50 kW) will be under 1 kg ... Yes, and it makes no sense to use an individual UAV for a separate armored unit: military aerial reconnaissance equipment at the brigade level with proper use and subject to correct and competent TK UAVs are very worthy of coping with all tasks. The trouble is that few people can write competent TK, but even fewer who can understand it ...

[abc_alex]

Store in a module mounted externally on the rear wall of the tower. The module contains both a seat and a power supply system. Perhaps a generator with a fuel reserve, possibly batteries connected to the tank’s power system.
Why there will be restrictions in the forest is understandable. But in the forest there is no point in such a "periscope". Do you agree?
And with a simple movement, the "periscope" will move independently while holding the position above the tank (you can place marks on the hull to facilitate automatic positioning) and height. In the end, it is possible to link the controls of the tank with the system for issuing commands to the UAV so that it "knows" where the tank will go. At high speed, naturally, the hovering height should be reduced. You understand that there is no point in shooting beyond the horizon at 50 km / h.
And what will be wrong in the mountains?

The weight of the cable is yes, the question. But nobody talks about a 200 meter climb. The tank gun has a range of fire. The flight height of the "periscope" must be such as to ensure aiming at this entire range. The guns of modern domestic tanks have an OFS firing range of 10 km. But aiming at such a distance is impossible. Raise the "periscope" just 10 meters and get 17 kilometers to the horizon. But no one can see anything that far. Here already the optics need to be raised very serious. And 5-7 meters of height is enough. According to your data, the rope will weigh 5-7 kg. In my opinion, not fatal. I am not suggesting raising the UAV 200 meters above the tank. But even 20 meters in height will already provide completely new opportunities.

As for the meaning of an individual UAV, it doesn’t bother you that modern tank guns are used well if at half range, or even at a third. And if the transition to a larger caliber happens, the situation will worsen. 2A83 is rumored to throw OFS at 12-20 km. But the tank can still aim at a maximum of 5 km.

[Blackgrifon]

Hermes for the Army Is it still riveting? I thought it had already been canceled.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Blackgrifon

Hermes for the Army Is it still riveting? I thought it had already been canceled.

It has not yet been adopted, canceled / not canceled is not exactly known. But most likely they will. It is too tempting to remake the shell of the shell to work on the ground.

[alexmach]

It is too tempting to remake the Shell rocket to work on the ground

And what is attractive about this idea, besides the lack of a guidance / target designation system at a given range?
And if there is one, in my opinion, a long-range missile can be made on the basis of anything. For example, both two and one-stage.

[SHOPPING MALL]

One of the options for targeting from Krasnopol will be taken, pointing at the reflected laser beam, the other will be done with GPS / Glonass guidance, or merged. Maybe there will be something with optical / thermal seeker.

Can lead a reconnaissance or UAV, or a helicopter that does not spend its own ammunition. This is true for any long-range weapon systems.

And about the rocket, and why not from the shell, if it is inexpensive, reliable and can be relatively simply refined?

[alexmach]

Can lead to a reconnaissance or UAV, or a helicopter that does not expend its own ammunition

Yeah, the ammunition does not spend, but life highlighting the target risks and enters the affected area. I repeat, with the guidance method available, you can make a distant vehicle based on anything.

And about the rocket, and why not from the shell, if it is inexpensive

Inexpensive? inexpensive for what for ZRK? And is it inexpensive for an ATGM also inexpensive?
And due to what it is not expensive? Not at the expense of small-caliber warhead? And this small-caliber part is enough for the needs of the ATGM? And if there is not enough and the gauge will be increased, it will also remain inexpensive?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: alexmach

Can lead to a reconnaissance or UAV, or a helicopter that does not expend its own ammunition

Yeah, the ammunition does not spend, but life highlighting the target risks and enters the affected area. I repeat, with the guidance method available, you can make a distant vehicle based on anything.

And about the rocket, and why not from the shell, if it is inexpensive

Inexpensive? inexpensive for what for ZRK? And is it inexpensive for an ATGM also inexpensive?
And due to what it is not expensive? Not at the expense of small-caliber warhead? And this small-caliber part is enough for the needs of the ATGM? And if there is not enough and the gauge will be increased, it will also remain inexpensive?

The second stage is not so small-caliber. And this is not a dogma, for Hermes the second stage can be not small-caliber, she does not need maneuverability of the Zour.

"Risking your life", especially UAVs. And in general, for the variant with GPS guidance, only coordinates are sent, and for an illuminated target (movable), the illumination is only the last seconds of the flight, the rocket goes into the impact zone, and at the last moment the illumination turns on. Until this moment, the illuminator does not unmask itself, and then it is too late, the response will not have time to reach it.

At prices I will not orient you, but I doubt that the Pantsir missiles are more expensive (rather cheaper) products of comparable range, whether they are missiles or ATGM from any other manufacturer. What are you offering?

[alexmach]

The second stage is not so small-caliber. And this is not a dogma, for Hermes the second stage can be not small-caliber, she does not need maneuverability of the Zour.

90mm.
Look at the calibres of the Ptuires.

And this is not a dogma, Hermes has the second step may not be small caliber

Which means an increase in air resistance as well as a drop in flight speed and range ...
Or the complication with the installation of an additional engine ... but what is the general meaning of bicalyberism-two-stage?

"Risking life", especially UAVs

That is, there are no objections about the gunner and the helicopter?

for the highlighted (mobile) target, the backlight is only the last seconds of the flight, the rocket goes to the impact zone, and at the last moment the backlight turns on

This requires a serious synchronization of the gunner and the PU ... well, let's say, for Krasnopol it works ...

What are you offering?

Yes, I do not offer anything, I just the value of this Hermes in the ATGM version is not entirely clear. For example, it is not clear that he is better than a single-stage rocket ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: alexmach

The second stage is not so small-caliber. And this is not a dogma, for Hermes the second stage can be not small-caliber, she does not need maneuverability of the Zour.

90mm.
Look at the calibres of the Ptuires.

And this is not a dogma, Hermes has the second step may not be small caliber

Which means an increase in air resistance as well as a drop in flight speed and range ...
Or the complication with the installation of an additional engine ... but what is the general meaning of bicalyberism-two-stage?

"Risking life", especially UAVs

That is, there are no objections about the gunner and the helicopter?

for the highlighted (mobile) target, the backlight is only the last seconds of the flight, the rocket goes to the impact zone, and at the last moment the backlight turns on

This requires a serious synchronization of the gunner and the PU ... well, let's say, for Krasnopol it works ...

What are you offering?

Yes, I do not offer anything, I just the value of this Hermes in the ATGM version is not entirely clear. For example, it is not clear that he is better than a single-stage rocket ...

Sorry, too lazy to split the post in the evening, I will answer in the "heap".

The increase in diameter can be compensated for by more developed planes and, yes, the second stage engine. And "two-stage" reduces the visibility of the second stage (it is stupidly smaller), increases the range by reducing the mass (the rocket floor fell off). And simply the construction of a unified first stage will be cheaper.

If they increase the speed, they can put a "scrap" instead of the warhead for some scenarios (in fact, an ATGM-BOPS), if of course the speed allows ...

Synchronization of the gunner and the PU is a kindergarten, performed 15 years ago without any problems, when the GPS was still SiRFstar II. Without it, nowhere at all.

As for the gunner and the helicopter, it has already been said, their risk when fired from another platform is minimal, much lower than if they shoot when they can be detected by something like a "Zoo".

[alexmach]

Thought interesting. As for the increase in the range due to the falling off stage, I do not agree, in the same place in the upper stage the main mass should fall on fuel, as its burnout decreases the mass of the rocket. Well, I repeat that it seems to me that the composition of the rocket is not so fundamental in comparison with the guidance system. That is why it seems strange to me to link precisely to Hermes, all the more so, as far as I understand, the complex itself does not exist.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: alexmach

Thought interesting. As for the increase in the range due to the falling off stage, I do not agree, in the same place in the upper stage the main mass should fall on fuel, as its burnout decreases the mass of the rocket. Well, I repeat that it seems to me that the composition of the rocket is not so fundamental in comparison with the guidance system. That is why it seems strange to me to link precisely to Hermes, all the more so, as far as I understand, the complex itself does not exist.

Yes, I am not sure about its implementation on 100%, now there is nothing more than that. Here today they wrote about LMUR - https://topwar.ru/159600-zavesa-tajny-nad-izdeliem-305-priotkryta-na-chto-sposoben-groznyj-vzlomschik-dlja-nochnogo-ohotnika.html, someone says that this is Hermes, but I'm not sure. Plus, we have a craving for duplication of the Mi-28 / Ka-52 complexes, and with an ATGM it can be.

I agree by weight, it is not so critical, but with a black sheep of at least six tufts. If there is a two-stage rocket, and in size it fits with an ATGM, then unification can solve the problem. Yes, and the second stage may be different - less powerful, but increased range, or near range, but with a massive warhead, etc.

[Blackgrifon]

Thank you for your reply!

[rocket757]

Conclusion - the ability to conduct successful military operations, everywhere and everywhere, as always depends on the quality of drug preparation, the right tactics and the presence of many high-tech nishtyaks who simplify their lives and complicate the life of the opponent !!!
It states that without the development of OWN science and industry, over time, lag will manifest itself and, accordingly, the chances of losing everything and everyone will increase!
The question is, do we really understand this? But we seriously, intensively work, Schaub this did not happen?
Doubts are justified ..... it may want to have an ace up its sleeve, but somehow you can’t believe it!

[Saxahorse]

I liked the article anyway. Despite some of the author’s excessive optimism in the details :) Especially the Black Hornet Mini-UAV (“The Black Hornet”) glanced, an invaluable thing for separating infantry!

And there are amendments or questions, for example, in the phrase "UAS Krasnopol-M2 with a laser homing system .." - what does the word homing mean? Did the projectile suddenly learn to search for the target and became homing, or did it just fly along the reflected laser beam? When they write GOS, they usually mean a built-in active search and guidance system. I've never heard of such a thing about Krasnopol. I understand that this is a semi-active system.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Saxahorse

I liked the article anyway. Despite some of the author’s excessive optimism in the details :) Especially the Black Hornet Mini-UAV (“The Black Hornet”) glanced, an invaluable thing for separating infantry!

And there are amendments or questions, for example, in the phrase "UAS Krasnopol-M2 with a laser homing system .." - what does the word homing mean? Did the projectile suddenly learn to search for the target and became homing, or did it just fly along the reflected laser beam? When they write GOS, they usually mean a built-in active search and guidance system. I've never heard of such a thing about Krasnopol. I understand that this is a semi-active system.

There are several ways to aim using a laser.

ATGM "Kornet" is guided in a laser beam, i.e. the beam looks at the tail of the rocket, and it is oriented to the point of greatest intensity. On the plus side, it is impossible to interfere, and the Whirlwind helicopter ATGM is also guided.

And "Krasnopol", or the American ATGM "Helvayer" are aimed at the laser beam reflected from the target. Those. they have a homing head, but only for laser radiation of a certain wavelength and modulation. Of the minuses, it is easier to interfere. Of the advantages - great flexibility of use, target illumination can be done by a UAV, another helicopter, ground crew, etc.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: AVM

And the "Krasnopol", or the American ATGM "Helvayer" are aimed at the laser beam reflected from the target.

Recently I drew attention to interesting statistics. The Americans write that during the "Desert Storm", Mavericks with an infrared seeker (ie, completely self-guided) showed an efficiency of 0.8-0.9, while Mavericks with a laser seeker (the ILC mostly used them) showed only 0.6 hits. Therefore, the next modification of the GOS for Maverick has now appeared, a hybrid! Those. laser with switching to infrared on command or in case of beam loss.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Saxahorse

Quote: AVM

And the "Krasnopol", or the American ATGM "Helvayer" are aimed at the laser beam reflected from the target.

Recently I drew attention to interesting statistics. The Americans write that during the "Desert Storm", Mavericks with an infrared seeker (ie, completely self-guided) showed an efficiency of 0.8-0.9, while Mavericks with a laser seeker (the ILC mostly used them) showed only 0.6 hits. Therefore, the next modification of the GOS for Maverick has now appeared, a hybrid! Those. laser with switching to infrared on command or in case of beam loss.

Yes, they now have a mainstream multi-range seeker. From a combat point of view, this is good, but expensive. We need both simple and complex. Difficult against a serious opponent, simple - to drive the bogeles.

[Igor Shcherbina]

Now they are focusing on the development of artificial intelligence, on the collection of the receipt and processing of all intelligence data from all sources of information, but the finished product will go to the troops in 10 years.

[Nikolaevich I]

Some time ago, there were reports of the alleged development of a "tethered" helicopter-type UAV for equipping tanks. In the future, it is not ruled out to equip armored vehicles with similar "leash" aircraft. It is possible to find a "place" for placing mini-UAVs on armored vehicles; but the question remains unresolved: "who and how" will, "work" with the drone? How "convenient" it will be when conducting "energetic" hostilities? (By the way, this was considered by some members of the forum on this page ...). it is reasonable "to equip UAVs for reconnaissance and patrol vehicles in reconnaissance subunits. But about tank subunits ... then maybe it is worth remembering the" fashionable "names: BMPT (tank support combat vehicles) and" network centricity "?! You can try to solve the problem 2 "ways" ...: 1. Expand the concept (functionality) of BMPT with a constructive modification of the platform in order to equip BMPT with a drone ...; 2. Development of a special platform "for UAVs" 3. Tanks, BMPT or "special platform" with UAVs are united in the structure of a single unit and in a single network-centric system. I believe that this will be enough not to equip each armored vehicle with a "separate" drone.

[Mikhail Drabkin]

To the author: you write "Aerial reconnaissance equipment will always have an advantage over ground reconnaissance, at least for the reason that the visibility range of ground equipment is limited by the curvature of the surface ..."

Surface curvature is a limitation for any surveillance systems based on line of sight (in the optical range - for sure)!

The rest is an interesting article. In long-range combat, the cable is exposed to shrapnel, bullets .. less than EM and optical means of monitoring armored vehicles.

And the UAV is constantly hanging over armored vehicles. It took off, looked around, and whisked down ... like a periscope. The observation time depends on the rate of change in the positions of enemy targets, the information sufficiency of the integrated proprietary and transmitted data that predicts the location of the targets of the surveillance data algorithms .... By the way, APACH (USA, a helicopter with a rotary target designation / radar system) does not constantly light up, but discreetly ". Based on Kotelnikov / Nyquist read frequency ...

[srha]

"In 1964, a miniature helicopter was demonstrated to which energy was transmitted using microwave radiation" (VIKI). It's about the cable ...
By the way, the basis of UAV survivability will be their mass and low cost. Those. (armor) equipment should have not one UAV, but a combat kit, like an ammunition kit.
One more thing, when will each infantryman be equipped with their own UAVs? As an example of the possibility of this, the development of communications in the troops: they started from headquarters, then switched to equipment, and now infantrymen.

[Tavrik]

Quote: AVM

A review of the UAV can be controlled by the same helmets. I pressed and hold the button - you twist your head - the UAV turns (or reconnaissance equipment on it).

And then the tank falls into the hole. Head nodded down, UAV into the nearest wall.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Tavrik

Quote: AVM

A review of the UAV can be controlled by the same helmets. I pressed and hold the button - you twist your head - the UAV turns (or reconnaissance equipment on it).

And then the tank falls into the hole. Head nodded down, UAV into the nearest wall.

Turning the head only indicates the direction, or the direction, of the cameras. And it is unlikely to be the main mode. In motion, it is easier to use scripts. But if the tank stopped and you need to look behind the building or into the building, then there is direct control. Yes, and the swinging of the head can be parried, if it is an intelligent system (it will connect the movement of the machine body and the movement of the head).

[Tavrik]

Painfully the intellectual system turns out. The price will go off scale. But these are "consumer goods" things should be. By the number of tanks or armored personnel carriers (BMP).
In general, I strongly doubt the practicality of using a UAV as part of a tank. It is more expedient to create a single space, when data from all types of reconnaissance (even from KRUS "Strelets", even from full-fledged reconnaissance UAVs) are sent to a single base, where they are processed and, at the request of each armored vehicle, are displayed on the screen in the form of a map with plotted detected objects. You haven't played WoT? There, if one scout "spotted" the enemy, the whole team will see him on the map. Everyone should mind their own business - scouts to open, suppress fire weapons.

[maden.usmanow]

as the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk or the Russian unmanned aerial vehicle Poseidon.

What ... Poseidon is our reconnaissance UAV ???