Now the Israeli Merkavas have their own visors on the towers

48
Now the Israeli Merkavas have their own visors on the towers

It seems that protective anti-drone visors on the turrets of combat vehicles are becoming a truly international trend. The primitive, which at first they openly laughed at, not seeing any benefit in it, is now a vital equipment tank in modern combat, which is well understood not only by our and Ukrainian military. Thus, tanks modified with similar designs have already appeared among the Chinese and even the Indians, and just the other day Israeli tank crews surprised with a semi-handicraft modification of their Merkavas.

The Israelis rightly fear that their Merkavas, even the latest modifications, will be extremely vulnerable to roof attackers drones, converted to drop ammunition or acting as kamikazes, carrying a cumulative grenade strapped to the “fuselage”. As a matter of fact, this was demonstrated during the recent Hamas attack on Israeli territory, when one of the tanks was hit by a well-aimed blow from above. So, with an invasion of the Gaza Strip, for which the IDF is now actively preparing, the number of such incidents could increase to dozens.




Dropping an anti-tank grenade on an Israeli Merkava
Dropping an anti-tank grenade on an Israeli Merkava

There is nothing surprising in these add-ons - in conditions where there is practically nothing to counter the new threat, a “barbecue” (as the canopies are called) above the roof will do. But here a question arises that has been discussed for several days in the media and on other platforms. It lies in why a tank, stuffed with various electronics, equipped with active protection and sometimes advertised as supposedly invulnerable, requires the installation of a visor against a cheap Chinese drone?


To begin with, it should be noted that the Merkava is not a new vehicle and was created and then over and over again modernized solely under the influence of the classic anti-tank weapons that dominated the battlefield. Of course, the Israelis’ approach to this matter was and remains very specific, as evidenced by its layout and the laid down principles of preserving the lives of the crew. But nothing is implemented in it for passive protection against completely atypical threats. Like any other tank, it is designed for combat work under the influence of familiar missile systems, grenade launchers and artillery systems.


Moreover, despite the striking differences that distinguish the Merkava from its counterparts from other countries, its reservation concept generally follows the ideology of differentiated protection. Therefore, this tank does not have all-round resistance to all types of ammunition, and has never had it in any of its modifications. Everything is standard there: the main armor array is distributed in separate projections to work at heading maneuvering angles. For the Merkava, they are the front of the hull, as well as the turret with massive mounted modules, as the part of the tank most exposed to fire.

Of course, there is also modular protection on the roof of the tower, the thickness of which significantly exceeds that of the main armor of this projection, which is positioned by some as reliable cover from attacks from above. Indeed, to some extent this opinion has a right to life if the attacking weapon flying vertically downwards is a warhead with relatively low penetration. But there is no hope for more, since these armor linings are more designed to withstand hits from armor-piercing projectiles at a relatively small angle from the horizontal surface of the roof and when fired from elevated areas.

Modular turret armor, including roof
Modular turret armor, including roof

For drones armed with powerful cumulative warheads, which can even be anti-tank grenades of the PG-7 type and their modifications, they no longer pose any difficulty. Based on this, the presence of a visor, which causes premature detonation, becomes not only unnecessary, but even necessary. Of course, if something really strong arrives, the steel structure may not save you, but it will give you confidence. Especially considering that open crew hatches can become a good target for throwing fragmentation ammunition.

True, the vulnerable point of a tank for a drone, as shown by footage of recent battles between Hamas and the IDF, is also the engine-transmission compartment and the driver’s seat, located in the bow of the hull. But at least the tower was partially secured - and that’s already good.


To counter classical anti-tank weapons, an active protection complex for the Merkava was created called “Meil Ruach”, called “Trophy” in the world. And it has, perhaps, already become the object of close attention, as a system that supposedly does not work in real combat. After all, there are more than enough examples of tanks being destroyed without triggering it during the recent Hamas attack. Many have even begun to joke about the fact that the Americans are now tearing their hair out by deciding to equip the Abrams with this complex. But there is no exact answer as to why Trophy did not work when fired by grenade launchers and missile systems. However, it is unlikely that it is ineffective.

Most likely, the reason is simple and banal - on the attacked vehicles it was turned off, and even the open hatch of any of the crew members automatically deactivates it, so as not to concuss and kill the tankman who stuck his head out with shrapnel. What can we say about those episodes when there was no crew in the tank at all or the attack was completely sudden. Moreover, “Trophy” showed good effectiveness against anti-tank systems and RPGs back in 2014, when Israel carried out another invasion of the Gaza Strip. And, in the end, neither the Israelis nor the Americans are interested in buying useless and expensive products of this class.

But with drones that drop a “surprise” on your head, everything is very clear - “Trophy” does not work against such bombings, and should not work. Its main diet is cumulative ammunition, mainly anti-tank grenades and guided missiles, as the most common type of threat on the battlefield, not only in global practice, but also within the typical Israeli theater of operations, where lightly armed military formations come first .


Neither the ultraviolet sensors, which are rumored to have been introduced in the modernized version of the Trophy for long-range reconnaissance of launches and grenades and missiles in flight, nor its radar stations are in principle capable of identifying low-speed objects, which are ammunition falling from drones. And even flying head-on, as if it were an attack site convenient for practicing KAZ, the drone will not receive any reaction from the defense system, since its speed is several times less than the speed of the attacking projectile.

This is a problem not only with the Israeli Trophy, but also with all existing active defense systems in general, including our Arena and Afghanit. More precisely, until recently this was not a problem, but a completely standard job of identifying common projectiles and a reasonable solution that reduced the frequency of false alarms to a minimum - an object flying at a speed of a couple of hundred meters per second can certainly be identified as a threat. But with something that buzzes at a speed of 50–100 km per hour or is completely in free fall, figure it out and distinguish it from completely safe falling objects or a flying bird. Therefore, if someday this electronics is modified to destroy drones and projectiles dropped from them, then identification based on the “threat/false target” principle will have to be worked on.

But in this case, we have to agree that somewhere tank builders and developers of defense systems took a wrong turn - all over the world, and here too. The first bells announcing that drones were becoming serious opponents of tanks rang during the war with the Islamic State banned in Russia. Let us remember that already in 2017, militants began to use drones with suspended grenades against tanks, throwing them straight into open hatches, but since then they have not paid much attention to this.


This also applies to Israel, as a leader in the production of unmanned aerial vehicles. Israeli engineers have introduced a bunch of useful electronics into the Merkava, including a smart fire control system with artificial intelligence, IronVision “transparent armor”, which allows you to inspect the surrounding area from inside the tank, and “Trophy” active protection, which shows the crew the location of the enemy attacking them.

But they completely forgot about primitive and frighteningly effective drones that can turn a car into a flaming wreck without much difficulty, which forced them to resort to visors in order to somehow escape from this scourge. Now many say that the IDF has yet to embark on the path of evolution of anti-drone defense, as we have had since the beginning of the North Military District. However, I think they will get through it quickly, even if they are hesitant at the very beginning.
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    20 October 2023 04: 30
    Well, what's wrong?! Jews are not fools. Combat experience is assessed. Let's remember how at one time those same Jews treated the MRK without a care and how these same missile boats successfully sunk to the bottom of Eilat. And a few years later the Jews had their own missile boats, armed with anti-ship missiles! Moreover, the Jews successfully created their own PCR. And let’s remember our dynamic protection. But it was the Jews who were the first to develop and use it. Having successfully protected your armored vehicles. So technical intelligence does not sleep. hi
    1. +18
      20 October 2023 05: 45
      But it was the Jews who were the first to develop and apply it

      Exactly applied first, but not the first to develop.
      1. +2
        20 October 2023 07: 13
        1. They also laughed at our “caps”. Now we had to urgently cook the barbecues ourselves. However, ours already install the mesh and gratings “in a circle”.
        2. The problem of small-sized UAVs can be solved using different methods (from the point of view of an armchair theorist, of course):
        - as I previously suggested making volumetric “minefields” from a swarm of UAVs around a protected object, we all saw how quadrics are controlled in the form of a swarm, and so when approaching the zone where a “UAV mine” is located, the nearest drone detonates, knocking down the enemy drone before reaching the zone damage to the object of protection. The “minefield” is located in length, width and height in the form of a cube or a ball, it doesn’t matter. When the battery runs out, the drone automatically returns to the charging base like a robot vacuum cleaner. Such UAV mines will carry a minimum of equipment only for communication with each other and a charge with submunitions with a motion sensor.
        2. A long time ago, software was developed for cheap cameras that recognizes a person’s smile far enough away and which the camera itself, using a servo drive, sharpens, stabilizes the image, etc. Instead of smiles, we program the type and/or size of the search object (drone), the program will automatically give the range (sharpness), capture the object (stabilize the image) and the already stabilized platform with machine guns (cannons), upon command from the computer, will work on the recognized and tracked target automatically.
        (R)
        1. +1
          20 October 2023 10: 34
          Yes, you need to fight drones with other drones, not visors. Passive defense and playing defensively will always lose. The battlefield must be completely covered by its drones: some reconnaissance, others guide, others destroy, others relay the signal, jam, etc.

          In general, you need to make an air defense robot with a machine gun and AI control to combat loitering ammunition and kamikaze drones. For covering tanks, boats and support workers. Self-propelled gun and stationary version.
        2. +4
          20 October 2023 11: 47
          Quote: Civil
          "minefields" from a swarm of UAVs

          A monstrous multiplication of essence without meaning. Why make everything so complicated and expensive? Why, why make a natural land aircraft carrier, stuffed with radars, cameras, manipulators, dozens of docking stations for drones, it will be a mastodon the size of a barn and the price of an airplane, and without any armor of course. And the most banal question is how will this something work when driving past lighting poles along roads, past wires strung between buildings, past bushes and trees in cities, and just in the forest?
          Quote: Civil
          A long time ago, software was developed for cheap cameras that recognizes a person’s smile far enough away.

          The task of recognizing a small camouflaged drone at a distance of hundreds of meters against a background of natural chaotic and dynamic vegetation is orders of magnitude more difficult than the task of identifying a light oval of a face a couple of meters from the camera against the background of static, smoothed urban interiors. In the first case, the object to be analyzed will be a hundred pixels in size, and you need to understand that this is not a swaying branch, not a play of shadows, etc.), a completely unknown color, and in the second, an object with a size of tens and hundreds of thousands of pixels, i.e. e. The processor has orders of magnitude less work to sift through pixels, an object of a known color in advance, contrasting with the background. And I’m not saying that the camera takes seconds to process one picture, while combat missions require performance of tens of frames per second. Those. You can’t get by with a simple thing like in a camera, you will need a powerful computing system, its cooling, a shock absorption system, all this will take up a lot of space, i.e. will add several tons of armor.
          Quote: Civil
          platform with machine guns (cannons)

          The machine gun is a very bad option. The lethality of a burst of hundreds of bullets will remain at a distance of over a kilometer. And the risk of friendly fire is impossible to control and predict. And what’s really bad is that the enemy will definitely manage this risk (to his advantage, of course). Protection, the work of which will be feared by its own people more than the attacks of an enemy drone.
          The gun with the smart projectile looks much better. A controlled detonation projectile creates a very small spherical area of ​​destruction, the position of which along the trajectory can be controlled for the safety of your own.
          1. 0
            20 October 2023 16: 10
            How do you like the idea of ​​electronic warfare on a tank?
            1. 0
              20 October 2023 19: 40
              Personally, I see here great immediate advantages, and even greater disadvantages of a systemic, long-term nature.
              A cheap compact complex, ala anti-drone guns, at first glance looks out of place on a tank, but it becomes outdated every few months due to drones changing frequencies, and therefore sooner or later there will come a time when the protection will not work and the tank will be destroyed. It is impossible to replace thousands of complexes at once. Those. all our months-long efforts turn into a pumpkin, and we start from scratch again. Therefore, we need an expensive all-frequency solution. But these complexes will be very expensive, and it is not very good to concentrate all the key functions in a tank, such as strike, electronic warfare, and air defense. On such a tasty single target, on which everything rests, they will not regret launching a massive attack using the most expensive means. There is safety in numbers. At the system level, it is much more effective, in terms of combat stability, to have a system of dispersed specialized components. Some parts can be camouflaged, others are forced to be exposed to attack. Something like an emitter in one place, forced to continuously radiate, but constantly under attack, the operator and other electronics are separate, camouflaged. With this approach, combat stability increases, and total losses, human and material, fall, despite the seemingly higher cost of specialized systems compared to integrated ones.
            2. +1
              20 October 2023 23: 52
              We were told here that the Merkava has a smart radar that searches for missiles flying towards it, and can also jam enemy drones. It’s a pity that they didn’t show us all this in battle.
        3. 0
          22 October 2023 01: 58
          They laughed at our caps because we made them from javelins. There was no drone threat then.
  2. +8
    20 October 2023 04: 41
    Well, that’s not a bad reaction to two weeks of our war, or rather a year and a half of ours, judging by the uniform and far from artisanal appearance of the “barbecues.”
    1. +4
      20 October 2023 05: 46
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Well, that’s not a bad reaction to two weeks of our war, or rather a year and a half of ours, judging by the uniform and far from artisanal appearance of the “barbecues.”

      People just remember how Jews and not only them laughed at the visors on the tanks that protected our guys.
      1. +4
        20 October 2023 11: 19
        Quote: Bulls.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Well, that’s not a bad reaction to two weeks of our war, or rather a year and a half of ours, judging by the uniform and far from artisanal appearance of the “barbecues.”

        People just remember how Jews and not only them laughed at the visors on the tanks that protected our guys.

        Stupid people laughed. And smart people know that if something begins to be used en masse in a war, even if this “something” is made of clay and sticks, then this should at least be taken into account. But the military in peacetime is a very inertial system and only when a roast rooster pecks in the ass does it begin to move. This is what we are seeing now in the IDF.
    2. +7
      20 October 2023 05: 57
      Well, that’s not a bad reaction to two weeks of our war, or rather a year and a half of ours, judging by the uniform and far from artisanal appearance of the “barbecues.”

      A good reaction in a year and a half for the SVO could be the installation of electronic warfare equipment on tanks. In the meantime, this is an attempt to quickly fix what has already been used somewhere far beyond Israeli territory.
      1. 0
        20 October 2023 09: 53
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        installation of electronic warfare equipment on tanks

        Can you tell us more about this? I know what electronic warfare is, but how can it protect a tank? Some kind of corner reflector? Thank you
        1. +3
          20 October 2023 16: 01
          Can you tell us more about this?

          Means for suppressing communication channels between the drone and the control station or GPS signals (FPV drones with GPS do not work).

          They have been used in our infantry and in the Ukrainian Armed Forces for a long time, although the Ukrainians sometimes put them on tanks. Mostly homemade from components from Aliexpress (for $1000-1500 you can assemble a pretty brutal system), but factory-made gizmos have also appeared. In the photo, where the box and antenna are, it’s a homemade one. Another photo shows a factory Russian "breakwater".




          But the massive use of such systems on armored vehicles is a double-edged sword. If the army widely uses civilian drones converted into combat or reconnaissance, electronic warfare becomes a problem. You can easily land your own UAVs that get into the operating zone of armored vehicles.

          This also works in the opposite direction: it is not always possible to land factory-made military drones with communication channels protected from interference by such electronic warfare systems.
          1. +1
            20 October 2023 19: 33
            Yes, such relays are needed from direct control drones so that they lose contact with the operator. But if the drone is taught to recognize and capture a target, or the operator indicates that it will follow automatically, then jamming the butt-cutting and communication channels is no longer useful. Still, you need to install Kaz, which works upwards. Mini air defense for a tank. Maybe something like this.
          2. 0
            20 October 2023 23: 57
            This could also work in the other direction if drones start aiming at such emitters. And if you give a drone a small amount of brains, you can spot a tank from afar, point it to the drone, and then it will fly to the target itself
    3. -1
      21 October 2023 14: 29
      These grilles are useless against PG-7VRs dropped from drones. Well, a grenade will work not on the tower, but 1 meter above it, so what? A cumulative jet of 1 meter will lose almost nothing in armor penetration. And the armor penetration in the PG-7VR is enough to penetrate the Merkava through the roof and go another meter into the ground. Corners with emergency protection plates like on our new tanks + emergency protection on the roof are a completely different matter.
  3. +1
    20 October 2023 04: 55
    And at first they were definitely joking about these barbecues, but this is how it turned out. Not a soothsayer, but whoever is the first to improve protection against drones will receive big orders. I can just see domes over tanks in the future, there will probably be development in this direction
  4. +7
    20 October 2023 05: 26
    From those times! Here at VO, some “comrades” told us about our backwardness and about KAZ and that that’s why we use “barbecues”, and that “tofi” rules, and the Israelis are cool and they have KAZ. How can we now live with this cognitive resonance?
    1. +11
      20 October 2023 05: 39
      From those times! Here at VO, some “comrades” told us about our backwardness and about KAZ and that that’s why we use “barbecues”, and that “tofi” rules, and the Israelis are cool and they have KAZ. How can we now live with this cognitive resonance?

      Not a single serial active protection system works against drones that throw a projectile straight into the roof, just like a kamikaze. Be it Trophy on a Merkava, or Russian and Soviet systems of varying degrees of readiness. All of them are absolutely useless against this particular threat. You don’t even have to read these “comrades,” as you say.
      1. 0
        20 October 2023 10: 02
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        Not a single serial active protection system works against drones that throw a projectile directly into the roof

        Well, before you throw a shell straight onto the roof, you must first fly up to this roof. Isn't it possible at a distance?
      2. 0
        20 October 2023 23: 58
        Just here they wrote that Trophy can jam drones with his radar before they appear from above
    2. +6
      20 October 2023 05: 48
      Quote: Coward
      From those times! Here at VO, some “comrades” told us about our backwardness and about KAZ and that that’s why we use “barbecues”, and that “tofi” rules, and the Israelis are cool and they have KAZ. How can we now live with this cognitive resonance?

      Why are you talking!!!
    3. -1
      20 October 2023 06: 36
      Can you tell me exactly how the KAZ should deal with ammunition freely falling vertically downwards?
      1. +2
        20 October 2023 11: 17
        Why are you asking me? Did it touch a nerve?
        You should ask these questions to our all-goers who laughed here at these barbecues.
      2. -1
        20 October 2023 12: 24
        I will tell. Write it down. All normal KAZs will come to two possible, universal ones, i.e. providing hemispherical destruction of almost all types of weapons (except for particularly powerful artillery and air ammunition), solutions:
        1) 2 blocks of guides (2x2, 2x3, 3x3, etc.), placed on each side, on a console providing high-speed guidance of 360 horizontally, and 90 or more vertically. Each pipe will contain a high-explosive fragmentation charge. Thanks to precise guidance, the weight of the thrown charge can be significantly reduced, and huge charges (like Afghanit) will not be required to counteract the BPS, i.e. the console with the block will be quite compact, and can be installed even on light vehicles such as MPAPs. Disadvantages - shadow zones for each installation, which means it is easier to deplete the charges with a massive attack from one side. Danger for friendly people near protected vehicles.
        2) Throwable charges with gas-dynamic control and vertical launch and radio control similar to Pantsir or Tora missiles. A significantly more expensive option (requires very precise positioning, i.e. a gyroscopic sensor and all that, plus complex gas dynamics), but also more effective, because all charges can hit the target from any angle.
        There are two different types of damaging elements:
        a) Conventional high-explosive fragmentation. After the mortar launch, gas-dynamic engines launch it precisely at the target. The launcher is designed in the form of a multi-cell UVP on the roof of the MTO.
        b) Flattened charges with a striking element of the Impact Core type. It is possible to place several charges, one above the other, in one launcher. "Aiming" the missile using gas-dynamic rudders after a mortar launch. Advantages - The best possible safety for your own. Because there is no fragmentation field, only UY.
        1. -1
          20 October 2023 23: 18
          Maybe it's easier? We make a module based on the KS-23, install a radar and a digital camera sharpened to identify and search for UAVs, using the data from them, they aim at the target, a shot is fired with shrapnel or something else suitable, a 23x81 mm cartridge with a range of 100 m will quite allow us to create the necessary cloud of damaging elements for any UAV , you can also have a couple of barrels for a larger cloud volume, the whole problem is in the radar camera and the software for them, but to solve the physical destruction of the UAV, all this will have to be done in any case, electronic warfare will also not be superfluous, but will complement and work in the BT protection complex. The collateral damage to the allied infantry is leveled out by the tactics of use; the same remote sensing poses a threat to the infantry but is nevertheless used on armored vehicles..
          1. 0
            21 October 2023 09: 11
            Quote: max702
            Making a module based on KS-23

            Buckshot is the worst possible solution. Let's just model on our fingers how this will happen
            1) First, let’s determine the actual operating range:
            As practice shows, a drone is detected audiovisually not from kilometers away, but literally from hundreds of meters. An AI camera will not improve the situation at all. Specifically: let's take a super cool 30MP video camera, i.e. 8K standard (yes, phones also have 200MP, but with their photosensitivity/noise indicator they are simply not suitable for use in the field, and in general these are more marketing figures, nor their lens, in principle, is capable of even close to producing such a resolution, and in Night mode uses blocks of pixels to increase sensitivity). Wide-angle lens, 90 degree field of view. At least 90 degrees to ensure vertical visibility without blind spots. Those. we have 4 chambers around the circumference. At 100 meters, 1/4 of the arc of a circle will be 157 meters, which will give the camera a resolution of 2 cm per pixel. Those. at one hundred meters, the body of the drone (for example, Mavic3) will be 5 by 5 pixels in size, plus the console lines on the sides one pixel high and ten pixels long. Those. the drone already approaches the recognition limit at a hundred meters, is practically invisible against the background of the natural terrain, its cantilever elements are already comparable to the noise of the matrix pixels. Those. Let's optimistically assume that recognition starts no further than 100 meters.
            2) At 100 meters, buckshot will fly, roughly estimating, 0,5 seconds.
            3) We will make the turret aiming drives very high-speed, say 180 deg/s.
            4) Total, for working out the goal, i.e. until the first buckshots approach the target, we need to spend 1,5 seconds. During this time, the drone will fly 100 meters at a speed of 42 km/h!!! Naturally, buckshot will not hit it, because the drone will perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, and with a lag of 0,5 seconds, no super-duper AI will be able to block a sector of possible trajectories twenty meters in diameter (let’s assume the speed of the drone’s lateral displacement is a third of the total speed) . And the presence of a cloud of buckshot with an area of ​​roughly a meter changes little here. The simplified hit probability will be 0,3% (1/314x100). This does not take into account the probability of a specific buckshot hitting a cloud 1 meter across. Those. will be many times lower. A burst from a shotgun will improve the situation a little, but what is an increase of several times from 0,1%? Or even from 0,3%? Meanwhile, for 5 shots you need to spend as much as 1 second! That's another 28 meters of drone flight!
            5) We missed, the drone was 30 meters away from us. Last chance. Here the probability of a hit is already quite high, because at the end of the flight the drone will fly along a roughly predictable trajectory (the trajectory will be within the silhouette of the vehicle), without any special maneuvers. But even here the probability is not even close to 100%, because the final trajectory of the hit is still not a single one, but many of them, over an area of ​​approximately 5 square meters, and the aiming drives have an error, and the recoil from the shots introduces significant elastic vibrations into optical and fur. systems.
            6) And if all this happens while moving, then the probability drops rapidly and unpredictably (depending on the topography of the road), despite all the stabilizers, which do not perfectly compensate for displacements.
            7) Now the cherry on the cake is a synchronized attack of two drones. Any chance of hitting two targets from opposite sides? Obviously they are equal to 0%.
            1. 0
              23 October 2023 20: 22
              The camera is exclusively an addition to the radar, and it can be used not only to detect UAVs, so this claim is a forest, “shrapnel”, let’s say so figuratively, we have specialists who are fully aware of how to effectively shoot down a UAV.. YOU are planning to shoot down a UAV with a missile are you planning to shoot down? Planning! That is, you need to accurately determine the coordinates, the speed of movement and other parameters in any case. Pointing the barrel of a shotgun and firing a shot is much more reliable and easier, and it seems to me that at a distance of 100 meters under electronic control there will be no miss with a package of striking elements, there are no intricate trajectories even for fp guns not to mention ordinary quadrics, you came up with this yourself; a speed of 100 km/h or 30 m/s is not a problem for the algorithms of the simplest computer, the calculation of the lead point will be made before the drone flies 1 (one) meter to the target. The recoil from the KS-23 for a turret is so insignificant that talking about it as affecting accuracy is delusional nonsense; modules from 12.7 to 30mm guns, whose recoil is several orders of magnitude greater than that of the KS-23, work with sniper accuracy, but this is unsolvable factor. A synchronized attack of two drones is the next task, so it’s possible to reach an agreement before a SWARM of several hundred units, so what? We’ll fire at it with a dozen other missiles, we’ll use up the entire ammo capacity, we’ll knock out 50%... And..? Problems must be solved as they arise.
              1. 0
                24 October 2023 13: 06
                Quote: max702
                The camera is exclusively added to the radar

                Those. we are replacing relatively expensive but effective missiles capable of repelling massive attacks, costing thousands of dollars, with a cheap shotgun that will only hit at point-blank range, and capable of reflecting only a single target, costing five hundred dollars, but at the same time introducing radar costing a million or two dollars? Did I understand the essence of your approach correctly?
                Quote: max702
                Are YOU planning to shoot down a UAV with a missile? Are you planning to shoot it down? Planning!

                You are confusing something, this is not about me. In my opinion, it is necessary to shoot down different things, on equipment - with at least 57 mm caliber shells with a remote detonation (but in general you need a controlled one), missiles in this complex can also be, but exactly what is optional, if possible and necessary, and plus KAZ throughout armored vehicles, including MRAPs, and as for missiles that are mandatory for troops, well, there is one, in the form of MANPADS built on exactly the same components as FPV drones, except for the jet engine from a grenade launcher, i.e. the price of the entire MANPADS will be approximately the same as the price of the shot down FPV drone. But this is a completely different song. And of course, for all this, radar is unacceptable for economic reasons! Because there should be an anti-drone system on equipment in every company, and an anti-drone MANPADS in every platoon, otherwise there is zero point in all this.
                As for the operation of the radar, of course it is needed, but in the form of a specialized distributed network that issues a preliminary control center for all targets to all consumers. Those. aviation, artillery shells, MLRS, and more or less large drones are traced. Smaller drones, such as FPV drones and Lancets, are tracked by a network of RTR stations. Please note, they are traced, but do not serve as a guidance tool. The tracks are naturally transferred to the field so that you know where exactly to look with a narrow-angle camera. But these networks are all fantasy, we won’t have anything like this. There is no microelectronics industry. therefore we must proceed from reality - i.e. all-round viewing by video cameras.
                Quote: max702
                there are no intricate trajectories there

                Firstly, it already exists now. Every second video with an FPV drone on YouTube. The trajectory is chaotic due to atmospheric fluctuations aggravated by the insignificant weight of the drone itself. Yes, the displacement is not so significant, literally meters, but even so, hitting a drone with a lag, an unguided projectile, is a big problem. But all this is in addition to the main thing - when it is needed, i.e. when there is a risk of being shot down, naturally they will fly only with anti-aircraft maneuvers, this is so obvious, so commonplace in aviation that I simply don’t understand how it can be ignored?
                Quote: max702
                The recoil from the KS-23 for the turret is so insignificant that talking about it as affecting accuracy is nonsense

                Look in slow motion (precisely thousands of frames per second) at the vibrations of the barrel, for example, of a machine gun, when fired, you will be surprised. And it's a solid piece of metal. Now imagine how this entire assembly of moving parts oscillates, where each degree of freedom necessarily has its own backlash, and each power element of the system, even massive ones, has a bend under the influence of recoil.
                Quote: max702
                This is crazy nonsense, modules from 12.7 to 30mm guns, whose recoil is several orders of magnitude greater than that of the KS-23, work with sniper accuracy, but this is unsolvable

                You have completely wrong ideas. They are simply not true at all. On this specific topic. There is Opinion, and there is Knowledge. For a specialist, Opinion often coincides with Knowledge, but for a non-specialist, exactly the opposite is true. Opinions are formed by the subconscious, from everything, including myths and misconceptions. Knowledge is always formed by specific facts.
                Watch videos on YouTube about shooting from the T-90M turret (IMHO, in one of the series about the T-90M Military Acceptance), watch videos of demonstration shooting with bursts of 30mm cannons on the Army forum (I don’t remember which years). Just look for shooting from helicopter autocannons, both ours and American ones. This is such a general point that I guarantee that by spending no more than half an hour of your time, you will gain the Knowledge that accurate (just like sniper) shooting in automatic mode is precisely impossible. Or rather, everything is possible, but it must be a very specific system, which in the realities of the army, on army equipment, is categorically impractical and impossible for a number of reasons.
                Quote: max702
                A synchronized attack of two drones is the next task, so it’s possible to reach an agreement before a SWARM of several hundred units, so what?

                There will be no swarms in the coming decades. This is an unsubstantiated internet horror story. They are simply not physically feasible. This is just spheroconin in its pure form. Incl. for the same reasons why there are not millions of high-precision projectiles, thousands of Armatas and Su-57s. This is not possible for economic reasons.
                And just imagine how this happens in the field. It doesn’t matter how many drones an army, division, or brigade has. Each company, each platoon deals with its own specific enemy, in a specific area. Neighborhood participation is very limited. Due to lack of visibility, lack of awareness, i.e. lack of network-centricity. Those. The fight is maximum company against company, platoon against platoon. The enemy is using all the drones he has and how many he can use. How much exactly? How many squads of FPV drones does he have in his company? One two? Are there ten? It’s unlikely, this is minus twenty people, who will work on the land? How long can they keep drones at a time? Yes, exactly the same one-two-ten. Not more. No hundreds of drones against one specific armored unit, at a specific moment in time, in a specific area of ​​the LBS. There is simply nowhere for them to come from physically. Even a company can’t have that much, it’s not science fiction. Even physically, these are several trucks with cargo worth several million dollars in each company!!! Cornets. the cost is twenty thousand per missile, counted individually in each unit, what hundreds of drones are in each company??? But several drones for one piece of equipment - this has been demonstrated more than once. This is routinely implemented right now, and this is exactly how it will be if necessary.
    4. 0
      20 October 2023 10: 50
      that Tofi rules, and the Israelis are cool and have KAZ

      At the beginning of the Northern Military District, the tanks rode in an advancing order, then they were ambushed and it was the RPGs that were destroyed, at that moment the KAZ would have helped.
      It’s hard to throw it onto an attacking tank from above; they usually throw it onto a tank not in battle with the hatches open.
    5. 0
      3 December 2023 21: 00
      Coward, Not resonance, but dissonance, but in general you are very right!
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. -1
    20 October 2023 06: 42
    It’s easier for Jews, you just need to carefully study our experience and adopt it without arrogance.
  7. -1
    20 October 2023 08: 13
    Let's see if this helps them. Not everything flies clearly from above, our drones fly into a window or hole, and even under such a huge grill......
  8. 0
    20 October 2023 10: 15
    Hmmm... that is, the lattice only covers the roof of the tower itself. The VLD (on which the quadric dropped an RPG grenade) was left bare, the rear part of the turret was covered “to the edges.”
    This is not a “visor”, but some kind of kippah.
    1. -1
      20 October 2023 23: 19
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Hmmm... that is, the lattice only covers the roof of the tower itself. The VLD (on which the quadric dropped an RPG grenade) was left bare, the rear part of the turret was covered “to the edges.”
      This is not a “visor”, but some kind of kippah.

      They will learn and very quickly there are no wisdom there, apparently now they are doing this preparation without entering Gaza.
  9. +1
    20 October 2023 12: 38
    First they laughed at the Armenians, then they laughed at the Russians, now it’s time to laugh at the Jews, but for some reason they don’t find it funny.
  10. +3
    20 October 2023 13: 00
    And at the beginning of the use of visors on domestic MBTs, the Israelis laughed, and how many comments there were on VO about the invincible Merkava and the Trophy system and that the idea with a visor on the turret does not stand up to the criticism of modern combat until the visor saved the MBT in battle. I’ll sum it up with the phrase and the film Diamond Hand regarding domestic experience: Although it is not aesthetically pleasing, it is cheap, reliable and practical!!! It was not for nothing that the Israelis were afraid... good drinks
  11. +1
    20 October 2023 13: 18
    Everyone was fixated on explosions and grenades with machine guns. Why is this? The drone needs to be destroyed before it hits a tank or other combat vehicle. The drone itself flies slowly and has a flimsy design. Not a BOPS or a cumulative projectile. This means that it is enough to throw something at him that is guaranteed to cover him and stop him. Net. A bundle of wire. Water or sand under pressure. Even a certain manipulator that will turn towards the flying ammunition and meet it with a consumable shield. You can't catch this projectile like that. And the same "Lancet" or a falling grenade - easily. We should not be afraid to try, but do it. Let the fools laugh.
    1. 0
      20 October 2023 15: 47
      Water or sand under pressure.

      Then the pneumatic ejection of some kind of ceramic discs, like plates.
      The main problem is the same as with KAZ - accuracy and speed of response, which greatly increases the cost of the system, including in terms of energy consumption. But the net will not stop a dropped grenade.
    2. +1
      20 October 2023 18: 39
      Quote: acetophenon
      Net. A bundle of wire. Water or sand under pressure.

      As a last resort, a smoke screen can be used as passive protection
    3. +2
      21 October 2023 00: 01
      There is no need to destroy the drone flying towards the Merkava. Let them burn
  12. -2
    20 October 2023 18: 38
    Quote from cpls22
    Water or sand under pressure.

    Then the pneumatic ejection of some kind of ceramic discs, like plates.
    The main problem is the same as with KAZ - accuracy and speed of response, which greatly increases the cost of the system, including in terms of energy consumption. But the net will not stop a dropped grenade.

    Write down, we recruit young people for mobilization, give them guns with small shot and set them to cover the tank. PROFIT
  13. +1
    22 October 2023 01: 59
    Now the Israeli Merkavas have their own visors on the towers

    They were invented by a Russian officer, let the Jews pay for the patent!
  14. +1
    23 October 2023 16: 45
    Israeli Merkavas now have their own visors on the towers


    So what happened?
    AI turned out to be incapable of sweeping away grenades with a broom?
  15. 0
    24 October 2023 18: 15
    Quote: acetophenon
    Everyone was fixated on explosions and grenades with machine guns. Why is this?


    The tradition is like this... A sling with a stone, a bow and arrow, that's all. laughing

    Quote: acetophenon
    This means that it is enough to throw something at him that is guaranteed to cover him and stop him. Net. A bundle of wire.


    Nets, spears, lassos and lasso... No.

    It is guaranteed to be covered by an electromagnetic pulse! Hard penetrating radiation. And you don’t even really need to aim... Transistors won’t survive this.
    If he is aiming, then using a laser is enough to blind the matrix. Ideally, burn it out - but this requires a lot of power. The problem is simple - to hit the drone's "eye" with a laser pointer.

    hi
  16. 0
    13 January 2024 11: 32
    1. “Grids” were actively hung by all the warring parties during the Second World War.
    2. The grid will not save you from a properly configured explosion (and a powerful one).
    The “jet” freely travels 3-5 meters through the air and then easily pierces the thin “crown”.