"Who will win in the future: a tank or a UAV" - reflections in the Western press

In modern wars Tanks and artillery became an excellent target for cheap, but high-tech dronesbecoming increasingly difficult to protect. However, as Jorn Mikkelsen writes for the Danish publication Jyllands-Posten, it is premature to abandon tanks. So who will win the wars of the future: a tank or an UAV, they are trying to find out in the Western press.

Recent military conflicts have shown that protecting tanks from shock drones becomes more and more difficult. If earlier drones were in service only with developed countries, then soon everyone will have them without exception. Cheap and easy to operate, they are capable of destroying expensive and high-tech equipment on the ground.

As an example, the author cites the military conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, where widespread videos show how tanks are destroyed with the help of drones. The fighting showed that in most cases drones destroyed enemy armored vehicles.

If the radar systems and the air force are removed from the game, tanks and other armored vehicles can be easily destroyed using drones. They are simply not designed for attacks from above, but are prepared mainly for strikes to the side of the hull.

- said Andreas Groe, Associate Professor of the Department of Military Technologies of the Defense Academy.

The armies of many countries, including the United States and Great Britain, amid the emergence of high-tech weapons such as drones, are considering options for a significant reduction in the tank fleet or a complete abandonment of their use. The Dutch army practically abandoned tanks altogether. It is believed that in modern wars, the tank will play a secondary role.

Nevertheless, most military consider the tank to be still powerful and flexible. weapons, which is too early to write off. According to experts, due to the threat of drones, the tank needs to be used differently, providing them with protection from air attacks.

In no way do I believe that tanks and other heavy weapons were destroyed by drones. But they changed our view of air defense.

- said Major Carsten Marrup from the Defense Academy.

Comments

[Operator]

Tank without all-aspect KAZ - ek

[Soko]

Quote: Operator

Tank without KAZ - yok

I agree, but you need to think about the problem comprehensively. Do not forget about the UAVs themselves

[Proxima]

Awesome article title! This is from the series, who will win whom - a shark or a lion?

[Sklendarka]

And in the fight against the green serpent
the Serpent wins ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Skalendarka

And in the fight against the green serpent
the Serpent wins ...

Hmmm .... in vain you are ... throwing the squirrel out of the rating!

[Shurik70]

In no way do I believe that tanks and other heavy weapons were destroyed by drones. But they changed our view of air defense.

And also - the water is wet.
And the Earth is actually not flat, but round ...
Smartly communicate common truths.

[Oden280]

Crazy article. It is impossible to draw global conclusions based on inaccurate information. In addition, the entire experience of the combat use of UAVs is based on local conflicts, in conditions of scanty air defense and an almost complete absence of electronic warfare. Airspace detection and control systems do not shine either.

[Alexander Kopychev]

You are absolutely right. You can also "safely say" that the actions of the Aerospace Forces in Syria have ended the era of bandit formations. And the question of the cheapness of the UAV is also very controversial.

[hydrox]

We just need to change the tactics of using tanks.
As one of the options: even a single tank going into the attack must have a cover link from the UAV group under the leadership of a heavy drone with a decent radar (100-km range will be enough) engaged in target designation. The grouping must have a layered structure of the build system.
Some of the group's drones must carry electronic warfare weapons with targeted interference.

[Pereira]

With so many drones, they themselves will destroy those targets for which a tank is needed.

[Alexey G]

You overstate! Drones do not give anything beyond new and tanks will not replace! The attack from above is just the direction of the blow!
Tanks have long been attacked from above: in street battles, from air strikes: by planes and helicopters! Drones are not a tank problem, but an air defense problem! The robot must be opposed by the same robot!
Therefore, for example, Tunguska, who fought with tanks, will have to be controlled remotely or by a robot, tanks will eventually also be controlled remotely or fight themselves, controlled by artificial intelligence! What does it do? The robot does not go away to smoke and pee like a Syrian soldier!
The robot can be on duty 24 hours a day, just like an air drone! It's not a pity to lose a robot!
However, a tank drone, in contrast to an airborne drone, is armored against bullets, shrapnel, land mines and even armor-piercing shells! You need to install a KAZ on it to defend against slow missiles and bombs falling from above! But the air enemy is not able to drag all this protection and therefore can be destroyed even by light fragments! That's why Tanks are here to stay! And without them yet!

[Kart]

Quote: hydrox

As one of the options: even a single tank going into the attack must have a cover link from the UAV group led by a heavy drone with a decent radar

Maybe the other way around - a disposable mini drone for reconnaissance (and maybe attack), the size of an ammunition, launched right through the barrel of a gun (like a rocket)?

[Pereira]

For this, a tank is definitely not needed.

[Krasnodar]

Quote: Pereira

For this, a tank is definitely not needed.

Each tank has its own drone - an interceptor - somehow more real.

[voyaka uh]

"The grouping must have a layered structure of the build system" ////
---
Something like that ... The tank unit must go into battle under the cover of its drones: scouts and interceptors.

[Letun]

Quote: hydrox

We just need to change the tactics of using tanks.
As one of the options: even a single tank going into the attack must have a cover link from the UAV group under the leadership of a heavy drone with a decent radar (100-km range will be enough) engaged in target designation. The grouping must have a layered structure of the build system.
Some of the group's drones must carry electronic warfare weapons with targeted interference.

They also forgot a couple of "Topols" accompanied by five satellites in orbit, an A-50 for air monitoring and a couple of tankers for refueling it. Well, of course, a link or two of fighters to cover all this beauty, then the tank will be covered in chocolate!

[hydrox]

And you'd better keep flying on your couch :: the barracks humor on the military website - this is so acceptable - immediately smelled of footcloths!

[hydrox]

How lovely!
Our sofa liberda cannot imagine that their Charters and Instructions will have to go to waste paper!

[Vadim237]

The drone on the tank 10 NAROV will start up - KAZ will not intercept them all, or the kamikaze drone will hit the roof of the tank with shock cores as you intercept them.

[voyaka uh]

KAZ will help partially: the destruction of 1-2 missiles attacking from above will significantly improve the situation. Reduce losses.
But a more radical solution is to cover the armored groups with interceptor drones.

[EnGenius]

In the case of a tank, KAZ can only save from incoming subcaliber or cumulative projectiles, but for example, a close detonation of a high-explosive projectile or an attack missile, ATGM containing a lot of explosives, can also disable the tank, and destroy lightly armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers altogether. Therefore, KAZ without air defense cover is also not a panacea. Shock and reconnaissance drones should be destroyed at long ranges. Even Carapace and Thor are not a panacea here, since the drones cannot see at the maximum range.

[Operator]

Firstly, the article about tanks, secondly, the ATGM interception line was quite far from the tank, and thirdly, the Soviet Shater missile launcher, mounted on the Molot tank, was able to intercept 152mm shells at a speed of 900 m / s.

The short-range air defense system is suitable for intercepting gliding bombs weighing 250 kg or more, but again - an article about UAVs.

[Vadim237]

And did he know how to intercept impact balls into the roof?

[Operator]

At 100 meters, the UYA will not penetrate the spaced armor of the tank, and closer the KAZ will not let it.

[Vadim237]

The shock core is now used not one but in tandem, from the beginning the first is triggered, then the second - the spaced armor will no longer help.

[Operator]

Two remotely launched UYs cannot get to the same point.

[Civil]

If you cover each tank from the air with drones from other UAVs, isn't it nonsense? Is it easier for the drones themselves to function as a tank?

[hydrox]

Not easier: in addition to operational and tactical goals, tasks and movements, there are also strategic tasks related to the competence of higher command and control bodies, and, accordingly, other capabilities of reconnaissance and operation control.

[Victorio]

Quote: Civil

If you cover each tank from the air with drones from other UAVs, isn't it nonsense? Is it easier for the drones themselves to function as a tank?

===
probably so, at this period. war in the air and from the air, and control and support on / from the ground.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Civil

Is it easier for the drones themselves to function as a tank?

I would like to see this circus ...

[voyaka uh]

A tank in battle always calls fire on itself. They are trying to destroy it by all means.
Don't let me close. And at the same time ground firing points are revealed.

[Alexey G]

Not easier! Sooner or later, they will learn to smash all this carbon-plastic like percale airplanes! But tanks will remain tanks!

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

Tank without all-aspect KAZ

may well be fine.
Modern COEP will be able to cover the tank from above much more efficiently. Especially if they are supported by group countermeasures such as "Infauna"

[Operator]

Group means - into the firebox

Any ground-based electronic warfare, including Infauna, is powerless over drones controlled via a repeater UAV.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

Group means - into the firebox

Too effective?

Quote: Operator

Any ground-based electronic warfare, including Infauna, is powerless over drones controlled via a repeater UAV.

You did not understand the question
This is also "Infauna"

[Operator]

Group means work on carriers (strike UAVs), and KAZ should work on guided munitions (including kamikaze drones).

The aerosol curtain is also in the firebox - after the curtain is applied, the guided munitions are guided with the help of micromechanical gyroscopes to the calculated meeting point with the target determined before the curtain was applied.

Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas (C)

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

Group means work on carriers (strike UAVs), and KAZ should work on guided munitions (including kamikaze drones).

Group funds provide additional. protection. For example, "Infauna" can cover 150 meters with an aerosol cloud. And this is not the limit.

Quote: Operator

The aerosol curtain is also in the firebox - after the curtain is applied, the guided munitions are guided with the help of micromechanical gyroscopes to the calculated meeting point with the target determined before the curtain was applied.

And at the same time, the probability of defeat decreases by orders of magnitude. After all, fortunately, we don't have robots behind the levers and coolies.

[Operator]

A guided munition will fly 150 meters in 0,5 seconds - what will the non-robot do during this time?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

A guided munition will fly 150 meters in 0,5 seconds - what will the non-robot do during this time?

And how is one related to the other?

[Operator]

In your opinion, tanks will attack under a constant umbrella of aerosol curtains, each of which has a lifetime of no more than 30 seconds? But how then can tanks find and hit targets?

The costs of creating a permanent aerosol curtain on a tank unit in one battle will clearly exceed the costs of installing a KAZ for all tanks of the unit.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

In your opinion, the tanks will go on the attack under the constant umbrella of aerosol curtains,

Do you always walk down the street with an open umbrella, or only in the rain?

Quote: Operator

The costs of creating continuous aerosol curtains on a tank unit in one battle will clearly exceed the costs of installing a KAZ for all tanks of the unit.

This is definitely unlikely.

[Operator]

I have an umbrella for 1000 rubles and I have been using it for ten years. And you suggest using dynamic protection instead of an umbrella with a frequency of shots every 30 seconds - so quickly you will fly into the pipe.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

I have an umbrella for 1000 rubles

And you wear it open all the time?

[Operator]

How do you know when it is time to "open the umbrella" (start shooting with aerosol grenades) and "time to close the umbrella" (finish shooting with aerosol grenades)?

BB can fly up at a low altitude, from the rear, at the beginning, middle or end of an attack, temporarily abandon the attack - and will you stand on the battlefield without moving "under the umbrella" until the aerosol runs out?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

How do you know when it's time to open your umbrella?

Radar, UV and IR sensors, optical systems, electronic reconnaissance systems, sound reconnaissance systems, optics detection systems - all this is not available for religious reasons? Okay....

What if I just plant the observers? Or, too, religion does not allow?

Quote: Operator

will you stand on the battlefield without movement "under the umbrella" until the aerosol runs out?

It's even easier with the umbrella. Movable fire zone, smoke shells. And we have an "umbrella" moving with the combat formations of combined arms, preventing the use of third-generation ATGMs. For the entire period of the attack.

[Operator]

The BB are equipped with electric motors (the sound is practically zero), the radio horizon of low-flying BB is no more than 3 km (with all radars being knocked out by the enemy in the first place), optics detection systems in conditions of dust from tank tracks and burning from diesel exhaust do not work (BB can fly from rear).

It is much more difficult for ground observers to detect a small, fast-flying AP in the sky than it is for an AP operator to find a tank.

I didn’t understand - how can a tank unit advance in continuous smoke?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

BB are equipped with electric motors (almost zero sound)

Nevertheless, it exists, and modern means of isolating it are capable of.

Quote: Operator

radio horizon of low flying BB no more than 3 km

??
Target height 30 meters, radar antenna height 2,5 meters, Line-of-sight range of the target 29.09 km

Quote: Operator

while all radars are knocked out by the enemy in the first place

Together with the radar station KAZ?

Nobody will knock them out, there won't be enough strength.
For low-power radars are huge. Anti-aircraft radar. Artillery radar, infantry and reconnaissance radar, Doppler track sensors, meteorological radar, Doppler initial velocity deviation detectors, KAZ radar sensors ...

Quote: Operator

optics detection systems do not work in conditions of dust from tank tracks and burning from diesel exhaust

Then the UAV optics also do not work.

Quote: Operator

I didn’t understand - how can a tank unit advance in continuous smoke?

Not "in" but "under"
Remote fuse, air gap.

[Operator]

In Karabakh, without exception, all Armenian radar stations have been completely knocked out or turned off by the Armenians themselves.

In the conditions of surface dust and burning, the optics of flying vehicles work for yat.

Can you bring the photo "under"?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

In Karabakh, without exception, all Armenian radars were knocked out

No.

[Operator]

My quote also includes the verb "off".

[Alexey G]

After applying the curtain, the tank moves and the blow will be delivered to the place where the tank is no longer there!

[Alexander 3]

And without krasuha boring target

[svp67]

The UAV will never replace the tank, and the tank will never replace the UAV, these are various types of weapons. And it is too early to bury the tank. Yes, the UAVs have now shown that the battlefield has changed, but what will happen when these UAVs also find their own "answer", as it was found for light anti-tank guided vehicles, ATGMs, combat helicopters ...

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: svp67

The UAV will never replace the tank, and the tank will never replace the UAV

Tanks have already been "buried", and many times. When ATGMs appeared, then combat helicopters with the same ATGMs, Javelins, kamikaze drones ... Drones-fighter drones would appear and cover the tanks from above. Each tank will carry several of them, and will cover, as destroyers did - a battleship. Many tanks - an impenetrable flock is organized above them. Many Drones will not be allowed on a single tank.

[d4rkmesa]

Precisely, the appearance of front-line attack aircraft or artillery (suddenly, also attacking from above) has not yet canceled the tanks.

[poquello]

some kind of stupidity

They are simply not designed for attacks from above, but are prepared mainly for attacks to the side of the hull.

, and preparing for an attack from above is a miracle to accomplish

[Lopatov]

Quote: poquello

and to prepare for an attack from above is a miracle to do

And what a miracle ...

[iouris]

An unmanned tank armed with defensive and offensive drones will win.

[Artavazdych]

I would put the question a little differently. Do modern armies need expensive high-tech drones when cheap but high-tech electronic warfare systems have appeared?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Artavazdych

while cheap but high-tech electronic warfare systems appeared?

Electronic warfare is not a wunderwaffe
As, however, and drones.
Sources of interference are fairly easy to localize and eliminate

[Artavazdych]

I said a little sarcastically

[voyaka uh]

"there are cheap, but high-tech electronic warfare systems?" ///
---
If high-tech, then it's already not cheap

[Artavazdych]

By analogy with the author's stylistics, he also called the unmanned vehicles cheap, but high-tech

[Dart2027]

After some time, all countries will acquire air defense systems, which will be sharpened precisely to combat drones and everything will return to normal.

[Vadim237]

But there will be no massive implementation of such systems, since it is very expensive and you will not install these systems in every convoy and at every checkpoint.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Vadim237

But there will be no mass implementation of such systems - since it is very expensive

And drones are not worth a penny either.
Bayraktar TB2 costs several million ($ 70 million for the minimum standard delivery, consisting of 6 drones, 2 control stations and ancillary equipment). Cheaper than an airplane, but also not cheap, about the same as a tank, if not more expensive.

[Vadim237]

Kamikaze drones, especially for individual use, are already in portable tubes and cost a penny.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Vadim237

Kamikaze drones

So they don't fly at an altitude of several kilometers, so it's easier to deal with them.

[Vadim237]

Yes, it is not simpler - the smaller the object, the more difficult it is to destroy it, and again you will not equip all the columns of the ZRPK checkpoints.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Vadim237

the smaller the object, the more difficult it is to destroy

How much less? Do you think these drones are the size of a thimble? The wingspan and length are several meters.

Quote: Vadim237

You will not equip all columns with ZRPK checkpoints

It depends on what.

[d4rkmesa]

It depends on what to compare with, except with the cost of the tank. And so Javelin, Switchblade are much more expensive than traditional weapons.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Vadim237

But there will be no massive introduction of such systems.

Good morning...
It is already in full swing.

[Ka-52]

The Dutch army practically abandoned tanks altogether.

Oooh, well, if the army of the Netherlands, then this is a strong argument

[Soko]

Quote: Ka-52

well, if the army of the Netherlands, then this is a strong argument

I would still remember the Vatican army

[Ka-52]

I would still remember the Vatican army

that's yeah they still have combat halberds in service, the very thing against the UAV - you can knock it down in flight with a dexterous blow on the kumpol

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Ka-52

armament still have combat halberds, the very thing against the UAV - you can knock it down in flight with a dexterous blow on the kumpol

You're right ! Halberds are a terrible weapon! Like a hoe! And I will prove it to you!

[APASUS]

1 The role of battalion air defense is increasing
2 Electronic warfare systems will become the main component of units
3 will teach the technique to protect the upper hemisphere, with the same KAZ

[The leader of the Redskins]

Why not use fighter drones, but, for example, defender drones? After detecting a strike UAV or with a constant period, it will fly the same average type and, for example, create a smoke screen over positions or offensive formations. Laser illumination of aerosols does not "pierce", an ATGM attack is not possible.

[common man]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Why not use fighter drones, but, for example, defender drones?

Can it be easier to return the Yak-3 to the battlefield? Fabric cladding (or modern composite). Isn't it stealth? Cheap. Let them hover over the battlefield and shoot down drones with machine guns.

[Dart2027]

Quote: man in the street

Let them hover over the battlefield and shoot down drones with machine guns.

By the way, it is far from such an incredible scenario.

[voyaka uh]

Don't feel sorry for the pilot?

[common man]

Quote: voyaka uh

Don't feel sorry for the pilot?

Aren't you sorry for the tankers? Or foot soldiers.
Considering how difficult a drone is for modern air defense, the Yak-3 will be an equally easy target. He will loit over his positions, or even in the near rear. It will be protected from F-16 (Su-27) by S-300 and Buki with Torah. He has plenty of chances to stay alive.

[voyaka uh]

"Why not use fighter drones, but, for example, defender drones" ///
-----
Fighter drones are easier. He entered into the memory of his computer photos of the enemy's drone-drummer silhouette, plus the request "friend or foe" just in case - the command: face! Offline attack on your own video camera.
And the operator is only on a safety net.

[prodi]

Hoping to capture a target through a video camera on a fighter drone is too optimistic, and the drone's radar will probably be weaker than the aircraft's radar, despite the fact that it will be necessary to act on a small-sized (possibly even "stealth") target

[voyaka uh]

Radar will immediately throw up the price of such a fighter drone and its use will become unprofitable. A scanning video camera - an optical sight is enough.
And the primary conclusion to the target is a ground-based radar, like a missile defense system. Further, the drone is conducted by an operator or an autonomous program, if the electronic warfare interrupts communication.

[Voentorg]

A tank with active protection is a problem for a UAV.

[Deniso]

I don't think it's so difficult to defend a tank from a drone. The tank was generally always vulnerable from the air, but somehow they managed. And in war, propaganda from drones is clearly more useful than in real combat. What excitement was once around remote-controlled missiles. How many screams, and what beautiful clips were shot. What is the bottom line? Never mind.

[1976AG]

Quote: denis obuckov

I don't think it's so difficult to defend a tank from a drone. The tank was generally always vulnerable from the air, but somehow they managed. And in war, propaganda from drones is clearly more useful than in real combat. What excitement was once around remote-controlled missiles. How many screams, and what beautiful clips were shot. What is the bottom line? Never mind.

If tanks are called upon to abandon only on the basis of their vulnerability to attacks from the air, then how to fight? Artillery, MLRS, tactical missiles, and the infantry themselves are even more vulnerable to drone attacks. Then fight only with the drones themselves? Absurd. Just increase the effectiveness of air defense and that's it.

[wt100]

If the radar systems and the air force are removed from the game, tanks and other armored vehicles can be easily destroyed using drones.

What is the accent about. The relevance of military air defense systems is increasing (torus, shell, possibly another arrow-10, although it is morally outdated).
Whose sky is victory!

[Voentorg]

Air defense queen of the air.
S-300 on bayraktar is like a king of a cannon on a cockroach.
Torah is cheaper. But even so.
The cost of the S-300 missile (not a complete complex) is $ 1 million, and the cost of the S-6 missile is $ XNUMX million.

[askort154]

The Dutch army practically abandoned tanks altogether.

Right ! Why would a country need tanks if it has the prospect of being the first to go under water?
They need a submarine for every family.

[Voentorg]

Rockets, MLRS and air defense systems rule the war.
Everything else is secondary.
The fleet is generally a victim for the coastal forces.
Although tanks with active protection are becoming more interesting for attacks. Without her, tanks are a victim of MLRS.

[Pechkin]

Which fleet was destroyed from the coast, without using your own fleet. In your opinion, the main losses of tanks are from MLRS.

[Voentorg]

Do you feel sorry for a ballistic missile on an aircraft carrier?
That will be a sight ...
If that is possible with all sorts of Ball. or bang Iskander
Radars see tanks, then MLRS destroys the tanks with guided ammunition (de facto small missiles)

[Pechkin]

Not for you, but for you, what have we switched to. All Iskanders bang, Iskander, that the anti-ship missile complex and the main thing is target designation for missiles (I don’t even want to talk about ballistic missiles at ships, we will boil the seas with nuclear missiles). SRZO shoots small missiles, thanks enlightened I will know. The whole answer: kindergarten, pants with straps.

[Mwg]

Everything has its place. And the battles in Karabakh showed only one thing - one should not neglect camouflage means and it is time to actively use electronic warfare means. And the fighting in Karabakh is a signal for the RF Armed Forces to change the concept of warfare. So it's time to issue terms of reference for the development of automatic systems for detecting and destroying drones.

[1976AG]

Quote: MVG

Everything has its place. And the battles in Karabakh showed only one thing - one should not neglect camouflage means and it is time to actively use electronic warfare means. And the fighting in Karabakh is a signal for the RF Armed Forces to change the concept of warfare. So it's time to issue terms of reference for the development of automatic systems for detecting and destroying drones.

You are a little behind the times. These systems have already been created.

[Mwg]

We can and fell behind. I have not accepted reports for a long time)))

[1976AG]

Quote: MVG

We can and fell behind. I have not accepted reports for a long time)))

This is not scary) Read about the electronic warfare systems "Repellent" and "Silok". This is not all that we have, but it is already quite good.

[Mwg]

https://avia.pro/news/peredovaya-rossiyskaya-sistema-reb-repellent-unichtozhena-v-armenii
Who else would teach Armenian brothers to use them ...

[1976AG]

If they even neglect disguise, then what can we say about lofty matters.

[sifgame]

I would not trust this resource, the yellowness is specific

[dzvero]

The main advantage of the UAV is its availability, and, as a consequence, the mass use.
The air defense will catch up, but the question will arise about the price tag. If the protection of the MBT company rises at the price of the F-35, then most states can afford to maintain one maximum of two brigades, or even battalions. The tactics of use will be like in the early Middle Ages - a knight squad and a crowd of militias ... a cross between Fallout and Mad Max.
If anti-drone air defense is cheaper, then saturation of the front edge with it will complicate the work of front-line aviation. Missiles of the Spike-NLOS type, means of REB, RTR, secure communications will be in demand. Everything is as it is now, but with the increasing role of high-tech weapons and equipment. In both cases, the war will become a matter exclusively for professionals.

[1976AG]

Quote: dzvero

The main advantage of the UAV is its availability, and, as a consequence, the mass use.
The air defense will catch up, but the question will arise about the price tag. If the protection of the MBT company rises at the price of the F-35, then most states can afford to maintain one maximum of two brigades, or even battalions. The tactics of use will be like in the early Middle Ages - a knight squad and a crowd of militias ... a cross between Fallout and Mad Max.
If anti-drone air defense is cheaper, then saturation of the front edge with it will complicate the work of front-line aviation. Missiles of the Spike-NLOS type, means of REB, RTR, secure communications will be in demand. Everything is as it is now, but with the increasing role of high-tech weapons and equipment. In both cases, the war will become a matter exclusively for professionals.

Electronic warfare systems, when neutralizing drones, do not interfere with the operation of aviation.

[dzvero]

Yes, but coordinating dozens or even hundreds of installations (if the anti-drone air defense drops to the company level) can be problematic, especially if there are communication interruptions. Zentchiks shot down their own at all times ... and here not 23 mm for one and a half km, but missiles for all ten. Frontline aviation pilots cannot be envied, just like walking through a minefield.

[1976AG]

Quote: dzvero

Yes, but coordinating dozens or even hundreds of installations (if the anti-drone air defense drops to the company level) can be problematic, especially if there are communication interruptions. Zentchiks shot down their own at all times ... and here not 23 mm for one and a half km, but missiles for all ten. Frontline aviation pilots cannot be envied, just like walking through a minefield.

You are confusing electronic warfare systems and air defense systems. Electronic warfare systems have no means of destruction, they block drone control channels and do not interfere with aviation.

[dzvero]

Yes, REB systems for their aviation should not be an obstacle. I mean that a large number of anti-aircraft systems will be difficult to coordinate and, accordingly, the risk of losses from "friendly fire" increases. And as recent conflicts have shown, anti-drone anti-aircraft complexes are needed in battle formations (at the battalion or even at the company level).

[fn34440]

Russian UAVs need not worry about scientific and technological revolution in this area for another ten years.
While the Tops were at war with pensioners, now they are at war with the very widespread coronavirus: from Turkey, Crimea, Central Asia, in the Moscow metro, etc., they contain the gobbled Duma with fat deputies (there are more than 100 of them who are sick, dragged from boredom and investments in offshore companies, abroad), the whole world has gone far ahead in the progress of the UAV.
In the case of the "X" hour, the same worthless person will tell the people "There is no UAV, but you are holding on."
It's a shame, listen!

[Olddetractor]

It is believed that in modern wars, the tank will play a secondary role.

The paramount role was and will be played by a trained soldier - a shooter, operator, performer and winner. And the Dutch press should discuss the possibility of limiting the military program to funding from the International Military Sports Council. It will be more economical and calmer)) And there is nothing to touch the tanks!

[EnGenius]

In modern wars, the one who has drones and multi-level air defense systems will win. In fact, in such conflict zones, even combat aircraft cannot be used without the complete suppression of air defense systems. Therefore, conventional tanks and artillery are needed, but only with guaranteed cover with air defense systems.

[NDR-791]

"Who will win in the future: a tank or a UAV" - reflections in the Western press
Wings ... Legs ...
Legs ... Wings ...
TAIL!!!

[DAQ]

Strange formulation of the question, incorrect.
Now, if we were to compare UAVs vs air defense systems, it would be a different matter.
The UAV can destroy tanks, but not vice versa.
In this case, the effectiveness of the UAV and the survivability of tanks depends on the degree of effectiveness of the air defense.
I don't think this is the end for tanks. I think this is a second wind for the development of air defense and electronic warfare
If we follow this "STRANGE" logic, then BMP, armored personnel carriers and in general all land for scrap. Since all ground vehicles are vulnerable to the UAV.

[Kart]

All this excitement and seething is known so far only on the victorious reports of Azerbaijan.
None of the fierce UAV fans know anything how it REALLY turned out there.
The military professionals know for sure.

[Konnick]

Our military, I think in a stupor, the Armenian army is a bad copy of our army, but a copy. The Azerbaijani army showed new tactics and the use of weapons.

[Alexey G]

These are your dreams ....

[Konnick]

You won't find domestic hardware in stores, but you can only dream. Everything was celebrated, all the best we had ... was.

[Alexey G]

https://citi-stal.ru/?_openstat=ZGlyZWN0LnlhbmRleC5ydTs0NTc5Nzk1Nzs4Mzk0MTczNTY2O3lhbmRleC5ydTpwcmVtaXVt&yclid=6369439282758979950 вот нашел для Вас в мое родном городе заводик есть!
google

[Konnick]

Looked, thanks. Isn't this a former steelworks? Is the abrasive plant alive? Six pipe plant)

[Alexey G]

https://www.rusprofile.ru/id/7635780
It seems to have survived from Soviet times. Central District.

[prior]

There is a bolt on any ass with the appropriate thread.
It is important to have it, choose the thread and apply it in time.

[Konnick]

Bolts, bolts ... how many in this word ...
A graduate from the Faculty of Gas Turbine Engines came to me for an interview. On "under interrogation under torture" he did not say either the number of revolutions per minute of the supercharger (he asked about the diploma project), nor the name of the reducer according to the curriculum of machine parts, or ..... was backfilled).
We won't have any bolts soon, unfortunately ... The diploma was a four, like mine.

[A. Privalov]

In Lev Kassil's story "Conduit and Schwambrania" Osya, the narrator's younger brother, asks the headmaster of the gymnasium:

- And if an elephant suddenly fits on a whale, who collects whom?

“I don’t know,” the director admitted shamefully.

“Nobody knows,” Osya consoled him.

[Mikhail3]

It seems that your comments were smarter before. A tanker, or what? An elephant with a whale cannot fight, due to the lack of a battlefield suitable for both. And UAVs beat tanks without significant overvoltage, since they have one battlefield and have anti-tank missiles. But the tanks are doing badly, because they do not have weapons suitable for the destruction of UAVs.

[Mikhail3]

At the moment, given the relative cost, the tanks don't stand a chance. However, everything will depend on the development of electronic warfare, in particular on ... However, let the ideas be presented to whomever is supposed to. Tanks also have a chance.

[Sancho_SP]

The cost of what? If 10 old tanks have one heavy drone in terms of losses, it is not completely clear which is economically more profitable.

Azerbaijan simply has many more resources and can afford such an exchange.

[Roman070280]

If 10 old tanks have one heavy drone in terms of losses, it is not completely clear which is economically more profitable.

But 40 corpses in tanks will be quite clear to themselves ..

[Mikhail3]

It won't, of course. The future of UAVs is a cheap disposable UAV rocket. One rocket, one UAV. Up to the point that the UAV hull is made of foam, after guidance, the hull is torn to shreds, and the rocket goes to the target.
Heavy drones are only suitable for observation, and only now, when the countermeasure tactics have not yet been properly developed. Well, they are much more profitable than the military-industrial complex for the development of funds, otherwise they would no longer exist.

[Lesorub]

They just aren't designed for attacks from above

In the future (which was clearly delayed in time), KAZ and REB will appear on the tanks!

[Sancho_SP]

And this is also not unambiguous. Rab complexes are generally more effective when performed collectively, rather than individually. But it takes organization.

[Mikhail3]

One might think that the tank there is also a little loaded with electronics. Alas, it is not too difficult to make modern electronic warfare systems ineffective. This has not yet been done because engineers have long been fired from the structures of the military-industrial complex, leaving only technicians who are capable of fulfilling the directives of managers in half, using old practices.
However, the military confrontation will grow, and weapons, suddenly, will again have to be used in real combat conditions, and not in proving grounds, as recently, such as a tank against the natives with submachine guns from the times of that War. Then the managers and financiers, who in the current conditions have seized power in the military-industrial complex completely and completely, will have to make room for a bit.
Of course, finding a good engineer in these days is extremely difficult, they have not been trained at all for 30 years, and those who live from the old generations are diligently spread rot. But a couple of things can still be found! And those electronic warfare means that are now available will immediately reduce the effectiveness. Our country will need a time machine, because those successes in electronic warfare that we now have are provided by people who have long died. And the current system for developing weapons is only geared towards robbing the treasury, and no matter what, so in principle it is impossible to expect any new developments, no matter what they talk on TV. In general, we need to dive in 1973, and somehow place orders there, we have no other choice and cannot be.
Or you can provide an opportunity to solve the problem for the country's modern elite. Putting Chubais, Gref and Kudrin in one design bureau, let them give birth to ideas ...

[Lesorub]

Quote: Mikhail3

Putting Chubais, Gref and Kudrin in one design bureau, let them give birth to ideas ...

Not in the design bureau, but in the T 72B3 tank of the first modernization and into battle - fortunately, there is a place to test this crew.

[Mikhail3]

You can't go into battle. They will put up comrades ... but who are their comrades? In general, these guys will simply give up and surrender the technique, albeit lousy.

[Herman 4223]

To me, the effectiveness of drones is the result of the ineffectiveness of air defense. That is why the Armenian air defense proved to be ineffective, this is a key issue. I would not be surprised if these drones turn out to be flying debris against modern means and properly organized air defense.

[Sancho_SP]

This is obvious. The question of the ratio of the price of an uav and an effective air defense barrier.

The carapace is worth 15 million, plus the missiles. Bayraktar is about 10. When exchanged 1 to 1, the shells will run out faster.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Sancho_SP

On a 1 to 1 exchange

And who said that the exchange would be like this?

[Sancho_SP]

And no one said that it would be so. This is the starting point of the comparison. Obviously, the shift of this balance is permissible up to a ratio of 1 to 2 in any direction. If it shifts more, then we can talk about wunderwaves.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Sancho_SP

Obviously, the shift of this balance is permissible up to a ratio of 1 to 2 in any direction.

And this is on what basis?

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Sancho_SP

Bayraktar around 10.

What are 10? For its army, 2-3 million dollars, for export in the region of 4-5 million. This is for one plane, without ground stations.

[Sancho_SP]

Are there any specific numbers? I looked at Wikipedia, it is clear that the source is so-so.

[OgnennyiKotik]

In the Turkish source, these figures were, now I can not find.
What you can focus on Ukrainian contract, 69 million for:

In total, under the agreement, the Ukrainian military received six drones, two (according to other sources - three) ground control stations and related equipment, including simulators. Also earlier, the Ukrainian side announced the supply of ammunition (200 missiles) for drones in accordance with the agreement. In addition, in Turkey at the end of September this year, 50 military personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who were trained in the use and maintenance of Turkish-made drones completed their training.

Most likely, the figure was taken from there 10 million for 1 Bayraktar, stupidly dividing by 6, but the contract contains many "special stages" and it is not clear what kind of "ground stations". As a standard, there are 6 cars for 3 bayraktars, but what they mean is not clear. Either 1 set of 2-3 cars, or 2 sets of cars (with 2-3 cars, i.e. 4-6 in total).
Here are the standard equipment:

[OgnennyiKotik]

I found this news:

The new version of Bayraktar TB-2 is likely to keep the same price. For export, its price is about 4-5 million dollars. For the Turkish domestic market, it will cost $ 2 million.
https://t.me/voice_of_turkey/2751

[Herman 4223]

Here another air defense organization may be required. Perhaps a hunter drone will appear soon, it will fly over its own and intercept everything that is suspiciously flying.

[Alex Justice]

Perhaps a hunter drone will appear soon, it will fly over its own and intercept everything that is suspiciously flying.

All the birds will be killed :(

[Herman 4223]

Pity the birds, of course. Greenpeace will start to resent.

[Sancho_SP]

We are waiting for the development of MANPADS and active protection of the tank, we are dragging. Attack aircraft also dominated at one time, but the MANPADS quickly drove them away.

[The popuas]

Build a canopy over the tank type of lattice from the side

[prodi]

Tanks will not be able to oppose anything except KAZ, DZ and aerosol curtains (moreover, the curtain is the most long-range). So their cover from drones must be loaded onto BMPTs (probably with external target designation)

[Konnick]

The purpose of tanks is to break through the defense. In Karabakh, the Azerbaijani army is simply destroying the defenses with the help of drones, using the "long arm" principle. If, during the assault on the Seelow Heights, echelons of shells were consumed, and all the same, our tanks attacked the unsuppressed defensive lines, most of them on the rear slopes of the heights due to the lack of accurate data on their location. Artillery working on the squares wasted a lot of shells aimlessly, but now Azerbaijan has accurate data and accurate artillery, and shock drones - one shot and there is no dugout, tank, air defense installation. There will be no tank attacks in minefields against ATGM trenches. The Armenians destroyed hundreds of tanks ... on paper, or rather on the Internet. The Prokhorov battle took place in Karabakh. Generals, as always, are preparing for past wars, but the development of technology will put an end to armored vehicles working on direct fire. Future wars will be for air supremacy.

[Konnick]

Many advocate for KAZ, such as a rescue from a UAV, such as with the protection of the entire upper hemisphere. And accordingly on electronic warfare against drones. And if electronic warfare will be used against KAZ sensors, have they not thought about it? As in a joke, but what are we for? Dynamic protection of the upper hemisphere is goodbye observation devices and the same sensors. An eternal struggle between shield and sword.

[Alexey-74]

In modern wars, tanks and other equipment will not need weak air defense, not only from the classic version - aircraft and helicopters, but now also from UAVs of various types.

[Incvizitor]

It is necessary to remake tanks for remotely controlled complexes, at the same time it will be possible to realize all this heap from storage.

[Rage66]

Probably in the future, tanks will be equipped with mini-MANPADS, but this is probably not the near future ...

[Simargl]

Wangyu: the tank will remain, but counter-UAVs will be added.
The tank needs to break into the defenses - he will do this.
UAVs will be "dealt" with UAVs, electronic warfare and other specialized areas.

[Nikolaevich I]

The tank is still "armed and very dangerous"! The very word, which some were afraid, others mocked, is becoming more and more relevant and inevitable! This is "network-centrism", "network-centric networks"! Subdivisions, their weapons, telecommunication systems (including reconnaissance and target designation ...) will inevitably be combined into a "network-centric network"! This will allow, for example, tanks to "see" UAVs at a long distance. Even without having a separate radar near them! Although, the radar will not hurt ... incl. and on the "individual" tank UAV! Also, there is a tendency to equip tanks with TURs with a range of 8-10 km ... You can focus on the anti-aircraft properties of tank missiles! With timely detection of the drone, given the "slow speed" of the same TV2, the tank will have time to turn the turret, aim the gun, and launch the rocket! Tank subunits will need to equip BMPTs ... Only not with the ones they are talking about now ... The "necessary" BMPTs should have an enhanced air defense ... anti-missile component! And this is where combat vehicles like A. Mitrofanov's T-17 come in handy! Well, of course, the KAZs (!) ... where can we go without them ?! ...

[Old26]

Quote: hydrox

We just need to change the tactics of using tanks.
As one of the options: even a single tank going into the attack must have a cover link from the UAV group under the leadership of a heavy drone with a decent radar (100-km range will be enough) engaged in target designation. The grouping must have a layered structure of the build system.
Some of the group's drones must carry electronic warfare weapons with targeted interference.

It is necessary. But the option that you propose - I think it will not be viable. Each tank is a cover link for the UAV. So, if we have about 3000 tanks, then we need 9-12 thousand drones? Unrealistic.
Okay, when one tank goes into the attack, which in itself is unrealistic, but what if a company? You will not cover the company with 3-4 UAVs, will you? Or will everyone have 3-4 UAVs guarded? Then 30-40 UAVs will be required to cover the company. And if a tank company will cover a motorized rifle battalion in an offensive, will you cover the battalion's armor? If the BMP has 39 infantry fighting vehicles, and if the armored personnel carrier - 43. Cover 3-4 UAVs for each - you need to have 157-166 UAVs over the battlefield, if on BMPs and 139-182 - if on armored personnel carriers. On a narrow section of the front there is such a number of UAVs (one and a half to two hundred), plus the enemy's UAV ????

The easiest way to create some kind of light electromagnetic cannon that would burn the electronics of the UAV

[dementor873]

With such a quantity of equipment per km of the front, tactical strikes will first be launched at the control centers of these drones. Do not be attacked by bayracts and traitors in such a quantity that the operator is inaccessible to the enemy.

[Disorder]

If the radar systems and the air force are removed from the game, tanks and other armored vehicles can be easily destroyed using drones. They are simply not designed for attacks from above, but are prepared mainly for strikes to the side of the hull.

And if you do not withdraw? And if EW is added to this?

[megavolt823]

UAV is a product that is controlled remotely. Has a receiver for communication and control. Depends on signal reception and transmission. The receiver is a sensitive thing. In general, for those who spent their childhood in the radio circle, I have already said a lot.

[Shuttle]

Yes, in the war with the Papuans, even a reconnaissance UAV becomes a wundrevaffe. But as soon as the party applies a little bit of modern electronic warfare, the packs of unmanned killers kill only by converting the energy stored for the flight into CO2. And this is at best. Yes, in theory, any air defense can be oversaturated with cheap kamikaze drones. But in theory, using electronic warfare means you can suppress a flock with any number of objects. In theory.
In practice, after the exhaustion of high-tech barrage ammunition, strike drones and other novelties, armored vehicles to varying degrees will again become the forefront of fire suppression. And then woe to those who will rush to tanks with remote controls from radio-controlled flying shells.
In other words, there is a threaded bolt for every nut.

[agond]

The drone has two main advantages, this is informational, it is easier for it to find a ground target than an air tank, and a speed advantage, everything else is limited in terms of security, weight, time, flight, fuel supply, navigation, and communication with the control center. And it would be correct for tanks to defend each other, that is, one is attacked, and the second notices the attack and protects the first.

[Whirlwind]

Strange, why only tanks? ALL stationary and mobile targets will be attacked by the UAV. And now what to give up on them? And what is the war in Karabakh? It's still the 20th century.
In the 21st century, wars will be network-centric, where UAVs will have their own brooms that will sweep them from the sky in batches and only after that will tanks and other equipment be used.

[dementor873]

If the radar systems and the air force are removed from the game, tanks and other armored vehicles can be easily destroyed using drones.

In the case of the artisanal air defense of Armenia if maybe it will work. With a serious opponent, the losses in the suppression of air defense will be such that a Pyrrhic victory will turn out.

[amr]

Quote: voyaka uh

But a more radical solution is to cover the armored groups with interceptor drones.

well, this is also fantastic ...
- detection
- target designation
- destruction

and it should all be this accompanying drone !!! - a drone with such a set of skills, this is what the specialists from above write, well, perhaps they went too far with the "poplars")))

Even it seems to me all the same electronic warfare and KAZ, separate systems on each tank, first of all these are either blinding lasers, on the final segment of the projectile's trajectory - a smoke screen ...
..... well, although who knows, 20 years ago, kamikaze drones and bombiles were fantastic too!

[Azimuth]

There are many references to the British and the current war in the Caucasus.
1. The British have long and gradually reduced their Challengers, the same fate awaits their BMP Warrior. And this is primarily due to their vision of future conflicts, the role and place of Great Britain in them. For the British, it is much more important to develop the fleet and aviation, systems for collecting, processing and transmitting information to consumers. And the more the latest systems develop, the lower in the chain is the link - the consumer of information, sooner or later everything will come to a separate infantryman.
In addition, it must be remembered that Britain actually lost tank production, the maintenance or restoration of which is very expensive.

Pay attention to the work that is being carried out in several countries on conditionally light tanks, in fact support vehicles, and for one nuance. Almost all of these tanks / fire support vehicles are armed with a 120mm tank gun, standard for modern MBT. At one time, the Germans with Leopard 1 mistakenly relied on a combination of firepower + mobility, at the expense of security, but in modern conditions, if you add to the combination of firepower + mobility + battlefield information, in many cases there is no need for a high degree of armor protection and as a consequence of the high mass.


This 30t wheeled "tank" will be pierced through with any not the most modern MBT, but taking into account the equipment of the second generation Centaur with modern systems for receiving and exchanging information on the battlefield, the enemy will be destroyed even before he can detect the Centaur.

2. The war in the Caucasus cannot at all be regarded as an event for any far-reaching conclusions or categorical assessments about anything, and even more so about tanks.
A simple example is enough, according to Oryx, who, like LostArmor, takes into account only the losses of confirmed photos and videos, which means not all, in reality they are apparently more by 20-30%, Armenia's losses in MBT amounted to 160 units today, of which 54 just captured. To put it bluntly, almost a third of the Armenian crews deserted, abandoning serviceable tanks, presenting them to the enemy in the amount of a little less than two tank battalions. Agree, it is difficult to imagine such a thing in any other modern army. Of the remaining 106, more than half were destroyed through the fault of the command and crew of tanks, to put it bluntly, outright unprofessionalism and slovenliness. That is, how about combat losses from UAV strikes, if the Armenians had at least a semblance of an army, and not the unorganized herd that we see on YouTube, the real losses would be plus or minus 50 units.
If Armenia had 50 units of losses against the background of 24 units lost by Azerbaijan with its total air superiority and billions spent on armaments, this would deserve discussion and analysis.
The same thing that happened in Karabakh in fact and the number of Armenian losses in tanks is not a reason to discuss the effectiveness and role of a tank in modern conditions and talk about the confrontation between a tank and an attack UAV.

[tank-master]

Stupid task setting ... the tank must fight under the cover of air defense. Without air defense, tank units will be knocked out, which is what is happening in Karabakh. And in the presence of air defense ... the fight will be waged with tanks and ATGMs ... the battle is not between a tank and someone, but a combined-arms operation involving all means and forces.

[Selevc]

Stupid task setting ... the tank must fight under the cover of air defense

A good weapon should be at war always and everywhere, and if it already has limitations, then it is a bad weapon !!! Since in war the absence of a person and often the absence of almost everything is a normal regular situation !!!

[Selevc]

The tank is a target for UAV missiles with an area of ​​3 x 6 m = 18 sq. Do you think it is difficult to hit such a target with modern missiles ??? I think it's not just that simple - but elementary Watson !!!
UAVs are technologies that are rapidly developing and naturally striking power and stealth of unmanned aerial vehicles will develop rapidly. !!! Tanks and other armored vehicles in their current form - now in the position of armor at the end of the Middle Ages - it's expensive, it's fashionable, it's prestigious, but it's more of a tribute to the outgoing era !!!
This does not mean that armored vehicles will completely disappear from the battlefield - but they must radically change taking into account new threats !!! The very principle of tank protection on the battlefield should radically change - and while these changes do not exist, they will continue to shoot like mammoths !!!

By the way, I think that anti-ship UAVs are already being actively developed - for which the targets are simply huge !!!

[Crabong]

There was always air cover for tank units. What changed?

[rocket757]

Win !!! no, not friendship .... normal, complex air defense !!!

[Michael_59]

A tank can also be a drone.

[ua1osm]

The same thing once happened with battleships and aircraft carriers. The battleships went to the bottom or into the ferrous metal.