Military Review

US Army orders remote controlled mines to attack tanks from above

30
US Army orders remote controlled mines to attack tanks from above

The US Army Arsenal in New Jersey posted an announcement for a contract to produce "top attack systems." This is the CAVM anti-vehicle ammunition system, which has a three-stage structure and includes ammunition for "attack from below", "attack from above" and a network architecture that links these components into a single system.


According to the author of The Drive, Joseph Trevithick, the attack system from above will consist of the main strike ammunition Common Anti-Vehicle Munition, the DLM upper launch module, the RCS remote control station and the obstacle planning tool that will determine the exact desired location of minefields.

The net mines themselves must be capable of effectively engaging targets up to 164 feet away. As for the remote control system, the US military wants it to be able to monitor up to 12 separate minefields, each of which has an area of ​​up to 400 square feet (about 000 square meters). Individual remote control stations must be connected via bi-directional data links.

Such an organization of communication will allow you to quickly receive information about the state of minefields, including whether any targets were hit or whether individual mines were out of order. Operators will be able to turn on and off minefields based on their own needs, allowing passage through the mined territory of their own or friendly vehicles, as well as clearing mines in the event that civilians or their soldiers suddenly find themselves in the minefield.

The military has not yet specified how the so-called top assault mine will work, but it is known that such systems were acquired by army units earlier. The ordered CAVM ammunition is expected to have increased lethality compared to the previous generation M93 Hornet and XM204 top attack warheads.

Recall that the M93 Hornet ammunition was put into service at the very beginning of the 1990s. They use acoustic and seismic sensors to detect targets, after detecting the object, the ammunition is activated. It explodes over the approaching enemy vehicle.

At one time, the US military planned to integrate the M93 Hornet into various mining systems that could be installed on trucks or used from helicopters. But this goal was never realized, so the Hornet remained predominantly a manual system, which made it difficult to use it on a large scale.


As for the XM204, there is even less information about it. The ammunition is known to be fired from a ground-mounted launcher. At the same time, there is no doubt that the experience of previous mining systems will be used in the development and implementation of the new system.

The main task of the military remains the creation of such a mining system that would be controlled remotely and would minimize the risks of so-called friendly fire and rika for the civilian population. Moreover, as we know, the United States did not sign an agreement on the elimination of antipersonnel mines. At the same time, Barack Obama, when he was President of the United States, banned any use of anti-personnel mines outside the Korean Peninsula, where minefields are one of the most important components of South Korea's defense against the DPRK.

However, the aggravation of the global military-political situation requires the United States to make new decisions in the field of anti-tank mines. The American military takes into account the new capabilities of Russian and Chinese armored vehicles, increased armor protection, and, accordingly, wants to have in their arsenal the latest mines that could cause significant damage to armies using Tanks and armored vehicles of the latest generations.

Therefore, regardless of the policy of the White House, the military will continue to work on further improving mines, taking into account all the latest trends in the technology of production of tanks and armored vehicles and the tactics of tank and infantry attacks.
Author:
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 April 7 2021 13: 03
    -5
    In short, they want to get an analogue of our PTKM-1R,
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 7 2021 13: 10
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      In short, they want to get an analogue of our PTKM-1R,

      I think that the definition of "analogue" in this case does not fit ... after all, the Americans developed their "roof-fighters", in my opinion, earlier than in the USSR / RF ...
      1. dzvero
        dzvero April 7 2021 13: 17
        0
        And what about the secrecy of the installation of such a mine? Is it really possible to bury it in the ground, sprinkle it and tamp it?
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 7 2021 13: 24
          0
          Quote: dzvero
          Is it really possible to bury it in the ground, sprinkle it and tamp it?

          And how else to mask them, well, you can put cow dung on top of it ...
          1. dzvero
            dzvero April 7 2021 13: 39
            +2
            Manure is not superfluous in terms of camouflage reliability smile But the mine should still take off, and not explode on the spot. In my opinion, they either hide it with a microrelief, or camouflage it with improvised means, or expect that the enemy will not look around.
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 7 2021 13: 50
              +1
              Quote: dzvero
              But the mine should still take off, and not explode on the spot.

              And where will she go ... will take off.
              Quote: dzvero
              that the enemy will not look around.

              Their range of action is such that it cannot be seen with the naked eye. Yes, and they will be installed together with the "protection" of antipersonnel mines and "surprises" from everyone there imagining themselves as sappers ...
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 7 2021 13: 52
          0
          Usually such mines are placed on the surface ... 1. they are triggered at a certain distance from the target ... 2. basically, such ammunition is intended for remote mining, although a "manual" installation is also assumed ... It is possible to bury it in the ground and sprinkle it, but if there is a modification intended for this ... more expensive, but the "emphasis" is made, I repeat, on remote installation ...
          1. dzvero
            dzvero April 8 2021 08: 35
            0
            Thank. Now it is clear.
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 7 2021 13: 17
        -1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        I think that the definition of "analogue" in this case does not fit ... after all, the Americans developed their "roof-fighters", in my opinion, earlier than in the USSR / RF ...

        So what? All this does not make them SIMILAR?
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 7 2021 14: 01
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          All this does not make them SIMILAR?

          Well, how can I say ... "Hornet" is a "family" of 4 ammunition, and PTKM-1r ... "loner" ... But in general, such mines can differ: 1. by the method of release to the target: a squib, rocket engine ... 2. target sensors: IR coordinator, "IR + radar" ... one ammunition, two ammunition ...
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 April 7 2021 17: 43
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            target sensors: IR coordinator, "IR + radar"

            forgot about the seismic ...
            The family includes several types of ammunition:
            HE-Hornet PIP # 1 delivered to the installation site manually, but the transfer to the firing position is carried out from the control panel. From the console, you can transfer the ammunition to a safe position and re-enter the combat position. It can be removed from the installation site and moved to a new location. It self-destructs after a specified period of combat work or at the command of the operator.
            HE-Hornet PIP # 2 differs from the HE-Hornet PIP # 1 in the ability to use against unarmored vehicles and sensitivity to human approach (self-destruct). Mining of tank hazardous directions with M93 Hornet mines is carried out on rough terrain in the form of the letter "X", consisting of twenty mines. Roads are mined with 3 - 6 mines along the roadside.
            A mine in a combat position has seismic target sensors turned on. When detected at a distance of more than 100 meters from a mine in any direction of the tank or other armored target, infrared target sensors are activated. Signals from seismic and infrared target sensors are sent to the information processing unit, where the distance to the target, the direction to the target, and the nature of the target are determined.
            When the target is identified as "noteworthy" armored vehicle, the guidance unit calculates the trajectory of the warhead and begins to direct it in the direction of the target. When the target is in the zone of confident destruction, a command is issued to launch the warhead. The warhead, climbing up the ballistic trajectory, finds the target with its own infrared target sensor, and when the warhead is directly over the target, it turns strictly vertically downward and is detonated. Impact ball hits the target.

            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I April 8 2021 00: 18
              +1
              Quote: PSih2097
              forgot about seismic ..

              No ... I mean the sensors of the destructive ammunition ... the seismic one belongs to the "product" as a whole.
      3. lot
        lot April 7 2021 13: 37
        +1
        80s of the last century. maybe even the end of the 70s
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. V.I.P.
      V.I.P. April 7 2021 13: 23
      0
      The roof mine itself is not a problem. Most likely difficulties with remote control of such huge fields. Yes, they also want to turn it on, then turn it off, then turn it on again. Moreover, self-diagnosis of the entire minefield ... Apparently, this is now the main problem for them.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 7 2021 13: 26
        0
        Quote: V.I.P.
        Yes, they also want to turn it on, then turn it off, then turn it on again.

        Well, this is a requirement of conventions.
        Quote: V.I.P.
        And even self-diagnosis of the entire minefield ...

        All this can be solved. The field is set for a limited period of time, and then self-destructs.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 April 7 2021 18: 39
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: V.I.P.
          Yes, they also want to turn it on, then turn it off, then turn it on again.

          Well, this is a requirement of conventions.
          Quote: V.I.P.
          And even self-diagnosis of the entire minefield ...

          All this can be solved. The field is set for a limited period of time, and then self-destructs.

          All this has been decided long ago, I guess. Remember, there was such a UMP Hunt? So how many generations there were afterwards! In 88, we were shown the use of a field, where the main one was the "brutal" anti-tank one (well, which burned 3 armored personnel carriers in a row), and around - MONK and OZMki, hell if you come up - everything works for acoustics and seismic. Well, unless that mine hit the side or in the forehead, and they want from above. Well, just an option, nothing special. Union of the 70s they are just catching up laughing
          1. Holgerton
            Holgerton April 8 2021 18: 43
            0
            What you described is never what the United States is doing now, it has never been a problem for the United States itself to fill a combined field of anti-personnel and anti-tank mines with a remote installation, not taking into account that MES and OZM are copies of American anti-personnel mines in the Soviet style.
            They reached the level of the USSR in the 70s back in their 60s, when they began to test anti-bottom and anti-side mines with a shock core.
            Well, unless that mine hit the side or in the forehead, and they want from above. Well, just an option, nothing special. Union of the 70s they are just catching up laughing

            This is not an option, but a necessity and natural development, since such a mine (anti-roof) provides a real all-angle, increased effective range and probability of destruction, and it is also less affected by how the target itself is located in relation to it.
            And the essence of the American development is that all mines can be transferred from an active state to an inactive state, as well as self-destruct and receive information about their status simply by sending conditional POST / GET requests and listening to the response, this is something more serious than TM-83/89 in the fields and gardens.
  2. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin April 7 2021 13: 20
    -2
    It turns out that the remote control station is constantly in touch with each mine over the radio channel and is relatively efficiently turned off with the help of electronic warfare.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 7 2021 13: 27
      +1
      Quote: Victor Tsenin
      It turns out that the remote control station is constantly in touch with each mine over the radio channel and is relatively efficiently turned off with the help of electronic warfare.

      Rather, they are with her and in the constant "Waiting" mode. Electronic warfare can help, but they are also made on the basis of such an impact.
  3. vetta
    vetta April 7 2021 13: 26
    +1
    Remotely controlled tanks will soon be attacking radio-controlled mines. We would immediately switch to computer wars
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 April 7 2021 18: 42
      +1
      Quote: vetta
      Remotely controlled tanks will soon be attacking radio-controlled mines. We would immediately switch to computer wars

      It is good to! But alas (.
  4. Klingon
    Klingon April 7 2021 13: 45
    0
    just right to start making and putting on tanks all-aspect KAZ. ..Well, or power shields wassat
  5. Klingon
    Klingon April 7 2021 13: 48
    0
    I wonder if the "Foliage" forward to such a "smart" minefield to start? or its unmanned analogue or several at once ??
  6. Thrifty
    Thrifty April 7 2021 14: 10
    0
    The weak point of such mines is the signal receiver. It can be muted or activated remotely by detonating a mine at a safe distance.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 7 2021 17: 46
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      The weak point of such mines is the signal receiver.

      I understand radar (electronic warfare) to score and IR (cape), but how to be with seismic (antigrav to invent ???)?
  7. APASUS
    APASUS April 7 2021 14: 42
    0
    The main problem is only in the mine-sapper communication channel. What kind of communication should be in order to exchange data, while remaining unnoticed by the enemy?
  8. Zlyden.Zlo
    Zlyden.Zlo April 7 2021 15: 37
    0
    It turns out interestingly .. seismic sensors located 70-100 meters from the road, expelling charge. Two products thrown to a certain height, then deploy and attack the target. Such already exist ????
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 7 2021 17: 47
      +1
      Yes, and for a long time.
    2. Doliva63
      Doliva63 April 7 2021 18: 50
      +2
      Quote: Zlyden.Zlo
      It turns out interesting ... seismic sensors located 70-100 meters from the road, expelling charge ... two products thrown to a certain height ...

      In the 70s, they were already in the USSR Armed Forces. But how many years have passed in order to turn on the target and attack it from above? Not a problem, I think.
  9. Eraser
    Eraser April 7 2021 17: 31
    +2
    "... Tests conducted in September 1997 at Yuma Proving Ground gave the result - out of six mines, only three reacted to the T-72 tank, only one of them hit the target. Tests in January 1998 - out of six planted mines, three were found mines. Of these, one mine launched a warhead in the wrong direction, one warhead missed and one hit the target. The tests revealed a significant effect on the combat operation of mines, both low and high temperatures, strong wind (more than 5 m / sec.), snowfall, rain, smoke (dust). Also, radio interference directors, unauthorized radio emissions (radio stations, television stations, radars, closely working spark gaps, high-voltage networks, candles of automobile motors, etc.) strongly affect the operation of the radio control panel. "http: //saper.isnet .ru / mines / m93.html