Polish press: Russia has developed protection against a "swarm" of drones

"Roy" drones - the problem of the ground forces of almost all countries of the world. Until now, no country in the world has yet managed to create an effective system of protection against attacks using UAV groups. But, as the Polish press writes, citing Russian media reports, Russia has developed a device that can repel an attack by a swarm of drones and protect Tanks from drones.

A technical description of a new solution has been published on the Rospatent website: an unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with a control station and a multi-barreled combat module. The developers claim that such a drone can hover over the tank, protecting it from enemy attacks. The Polish publication Gadzetomania writes that the network sensors of an unmanned aerial vehicle are able to determine the flight path of small drones operating in a swarm. On them, the fire is opened by the combat module. Tracking enemy UAVs will be possible with the help of special equipment.

The Polish press writes that Russia has stepped up the development of protection against drones due to the increased risks of drone attacks on military and civilian infrastructure. After all, until recently, no fighter aviation, neither air defenses nor conventional small arms were able to provide effective protection for ground units from an attack by a swarm of drones.

Meanwhile, in 2021, the Swiss branch of Rheinmetall Air Defense presented a recording of a demonstration of the Skynex system, an anti-aircraft system capable of fighting a swarm of drones. However, the system was only able to hit a small number of UAVs, so its effectiveness is questionable.

As for the Russian invention, the Polish press emphasizes that its effectiveness is still unknown. If the tests are successful, the Russian media will most likely publish their results.

Comments

[Pavel episkop]

If the Poles already wrote about Russian weapons, then it means really "excellent")) Although their opinion is "deep and far." The message that development is underway has been posted for more than a year - the Balts say nothing) d

[ancestors from Don]

Fighting drones with rapid-fire twin installations is the same thing as shooting sparrows from a cannon (((only an electronic protective field can most likely secure a certain protection sector.

[The black]

For me, Duc, in the event of a threat to use the "swarm", the most reliable is to drop the rocket into the hive , and at the same time in the pigsty of the ukrovermacht ....

[210ox]

Not certainly in that way. Ammunition with controlled detonation. By the way, there is a video with these Rheinmetal and how he knocks down a swarm. Our counterpart is Derivation

[YOUR]

The video you are referring to is an advertisement. A swarm of drones is not like when they are in close formation on a cannon rod. When a large number simultaneously attacks an object from different sides, at different heights. Part carries a variety of weapons, and part can carry all possible "jammers".
While this is all in theory, but after all, both planes and rockets were once considered fantasy.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: 210ox

Not certainly in that way. Ammunition with controlled detonation. By the way, there is a video with these Rheinmetal and how he knocks down a swarm. Our counterpart is Derivation

Now try hanging the Derivation over the tank.
Well, well, don’t hang it .. Rheinmetall could, but we have 57 mm programmable ammunition only on beautiful posters, not to mention smaller calibers.
The Poles just write articles under some kind of substances.

[shinobi]

Undermining at a predetermined distance, not to be confused with a controlled one, is far from new and has been used by anti-aircraft gunners since the first zeppelins appeared in the sky. The fight against small objects from the same opera, only appeared even earlier. etc., the principle is the same. Creating a cloud of striking elements against a small-sized, highly maneuverable low-speed target. The point here is to create an acceptable-sized ammunition with shrapnel. S-60, etc. When powerful compact lasers finally begin to consume less energy, then so do they. Emi jammers have a significant drawback, poor selectivity.

[Klingon]

Do not understand what kind of grotesque system? A drone with a Gatling machine gun that hovered over a tank? What kind of nonsense? Poles smoked?? I was thinking about an advanced REP system, or some kind of Amy weapon.

[minus]

They read an article on the Military Review ... About Russian tanks that we did not see ... And let's go wool on patents!

[nnm]

It is interesting how the recoil is compensated in this wunderwaffe.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Klingon

Do not understand what kind of grotesque system? A drone with a Gatling machine gun that hovered over a tank? What kind of nonsense? Poles smoked?? I was thinking about an advanced REP system, or some kind of Amy weapon.

Well, yes, such a drone, yes .. The size of a helicopter ..

[voyaka uh]

Israel has also developed a drone-interceptor-drones with weapons.
But it is only effective against single enemy drones.
A swarm cannot be dealt with in this way.

[Pereira]

You need your swarm.

[Klingon]

As far as I know, an interceptor drone has been developed in the Russian Federation and is called the Wolf. This is a high-speed Quadcopter, it catches up with the enemy drone and spits a web at it like a spider. By the way, there was an article

[Seld]

Why not from Shilka? kaaaaaaak give a couple of queues! There expansion is decent. Any "swarm" is scattered like crows ...

[Klingon]

The problem with Shilkin's 23-mm ammunition is that they are without programmable fuses. From the shells, they also smacked at the drones from cannons, but the hits there were so-so

[sergo1914]

Quote: seld

Why not from Shilka? kaaaaaaak give a couple of queues! There expansion is decent. Any "swarm" is scattered like crows ...

The shells are pitiful. Better anti-aircraft quad Maxim. That's where the hellish rate of fire is. Just add water.

[Mouse]

As for the Russian invention, the Polish press emphasizes that its effectiveness is still unknown.

well, at least they don’t know something ... gives hope ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Self-propelled 152-mm howitzers can be equipped with anti-aircraft shells, that's where there will be a high probability of hitting targets. Those drones that do not have enough shrapnel will fall from the shock wave. And large drones can already be fought by naval 130-mm artillery systems "Bereg"

[Lech from Android.]

Why trifle ... let's immediately hit the swarms with Iskanders and Zircons.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If you want to live, you won't be fooled out of it! And the 130-mm caliber is the most anti-aircraft.

[Seld]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Self-propelled 152-mm howitzers can be equipped with anti-aircraft shells, that's where there will be a high probability of hitting targets. Those drones that do not have enough shrapnel will fall from the shock wave.

but it’s impossible with a fan of 2-3 machine guns? Chom so to say...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Quadruple Maxim machine guns will help you, and you will certainly shoot from them in the old fashioned way, while standing!

[Slon1978]

This patented idea looks, to put it mildly, doubtful. The fire control and aiming system of this defensive drone must be very effective (radar, optical sensors?), the ammunition load must be sufficient for several shots (weight), this drone must hang over the tank for a long time (high battery capacity, or internal combustion engine, or power cable from the tank) including -30 in winter and +30 in summer. All this looks too complicated and heavy, which means it will be expensive and unreliable. In my opinion, the way to protect the tank from a swarm of drones lies on the surface - KAZ shooting into the upper hemisphere. Also, this universal solution protects against ATGMs operating in the upper hemisphere. In my opinion, the need for such a KAZ is ripe

[bovi]

communication with the tank yes, hints at the cable. the constant location in the combat position for the drone seems too "non-network-centric", i.e. after all, it is launched several times and at the moments of threats reconnoitered by other systems.
BUT kmk the topic of boobs is not something that is not disclosed, not even stretched. To provide with a threat wave, only a multi-barreled firing point is supposed? And why then "drone", if you don't care from above or below to shoot at tens of meters then. At the same time, the turn rate * positioning accuracy (stabilization!) of the turret + ammunition seem to be more significant than the location height (well, even if it is offset towards the threatened direction (although for a swarm there should be at least two of them, i.e. from different sides and heights).

[Jacket in stock]

Patent for the idea of ​​attaching a shotgun to a helicopter....
Well ...
And so an effective remedy for a swarm was invented a couple of thousand years ago - fireworks.

[sen]

I found a patent. Pictures from it.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: sen

found a patent. Pictures from it.

Well, yes, there are a lot of shotguns plus a net as a target sensor.

[Vladimir 290]

They forgot to write about the vulture drones, the Americans should have had it for a long time, I myself saw it in the second episode of Star Wars

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I'm already starting to think that the quick-firing Finnish 120-mm mortar is not such a stupid thing. If you equip mines with fuses for remote detonation and self-liquidators, then a mini-air defense system will turn out quite well. Looks like it's time to catch up with them.

[rocket757]

Polish press: Russia has developed protection against a "swarm" of drones

natural process, strike means are being created, countermeasures will be created.

[Dizel200]

Shrapnel to the rescue

[Kerensky]

I was actually thinking about glue. Slams ammunition overhead and leaves a bunch of quick-setting snot in the air. That is, the formation of the network after the shot. How much does that drone need?

[bovi]

There is a fundamental difference between countering the action of a swarm in a reconnoitred situation or detecting a threat in the near zone, when there are not tens of seconds before the defeat. In the case of a reconnoitred threat, camouflage is more effective, because. the smaller the drone, the worse the vision and / or the brain. It is no coincidence that BPs were adopted specifically to create an aerosol camouflage field. In the case of "you are in the desert and there are two fascist tigers around the corner," protection with striking elements seems to be more effective, but ... how many waves and from what directions can KAZ withstand in this case, how quickly can its combat capability be restored?

In my opinion, a firing point for counteraction should be 1) specialized. far from always a swarm of drones will be rationally expected - it cannot be always and suddenly. Moreover, for damage to armored vehicles, something more than half a kilo of TNT is required (i.e. drones will not be mini, but somewhere somehow loitering PSUs).
The firing point can be automated and bp. For example, we can easily create a 4x4 wide-wheeled platform for a load of about 200 kg with an autonomy of tens of kilometers to ensure maneuvering during combat operations. On the platform, you can place a multi-barrel system for firing programmable power supplies according to external control commands. The system can fire not necessarily expendable ammunition of destructive or camouflaging action, but also mini-UAVs capable of loitering in the protected area for some time and firing something in the area or in the direction of the protected equipment.
Actually, we have already seen more than one project of such a robotic transport platform, for which different payload modules are assumed. Protecting a single target or area seems to me more effective from the ground for reasons of weight and lack of advantage from air maneuver.

[SavranP]

Such a tool (protection from hordes of mini and microcopters, drones) has long been invented, it is called a plasma cloud. Proposed by a German engineer, at the end of World War II, to defend against Anglo-Saxon aircraft. Create a cloud of coal dust in the path of her flight and then detonate it. A cloud, in the volume of several cubic kilometers, would blow the planes to smithereens. The allies were lucky, the Germans did not have time to implement: the Soviets took Berlin and the Fuhrer. It is not clear why barreled anti-aircraft guns that shoot shrapnel are not used against the Turkish "Bayraktars"? For Soviet "hundredths", with PUAZO and SON-4, such drones are a very easy target. And in the mines of Donetsk there were a lot of these guns. By the way, you can create a "plasma cloud" in the sky and "Buratino" ("Solntsepek"), with a slight modification.

[bovi]

It makes no sense to protect armored vehicles from mini and micro. From loitering bp, which can be in large numbers - a question. Because the question is: can they, in large part, how much will it cost and which armies will use them and in what case? ..
Micros and minis can be a threat to personnel if they are considered "air-laid or relocated mines" such as a migratory anti-personnel swarm. But this is also a distraction from the content of the article. "Against the Bayraktars" - this is again off topic.
Conventionally, a "plasma cloud" requires placement, moreover, ahead of schedule and a time factor from seconds to tens of minutes. Those. there is a task of reconnaissance of a threat, an effective launch (maneuver, autonomy, network-centricity ...), an ammunition with a proven effectiveness of a countermeasure based on some principle.
What is the place of Pinocchio in this case? - PU. This fool on caterpillars, which must be placed a hundred meters away to accompany armored vehicles ??! And how much would such a cover cost, even if there were no casualties?

[Butchcassidy]

I'm wildly sorry, why not electronic warfare?