What to use for a drone?

47
What to use for a drone?

We continue the theme of “trench electronic warfare”. As it became clear from previous materials, the principle “for a large ship, a large torpedo” is fully observed here. The drone is the main goal of those on the LBS for many reasons. In just a couple of years, UAVs have become firmly established in everyday use, and the handy operator of a flying contraption is valued much more than a gunner.

If you look at the responsibilities that the former civilian drone took on, you begin to understand that there is something to think about:
- conducting reconnaissance at all levels, from platoon to division;
- fire adjustment;
- bombardment of enemy personnel and equipment with suspended ammunition, fortunately, craftsmen equally adapt both high-explosive fragmentation and shaped charges;
- escorting enemy columns and recording attacks on them by others drones;
- use of UAVs as communication repeaters;
- night patrols of LBS using thermal imaging equipment;
- kamikaze drones, including drone fighters.



In general, this list will take his helicopter into its rotors with dignity. And here we are talking about a former, excuse me, toy who was mobilized and sent to war. The toy has become such a threat that to combat it, they began to develop not only individual types of weapons, but also create complexes and develop counter tactics.

Today, what we call “trench electronic warfare” is so far represented only by means of sound (ears) and optical (eyes and binoculars) observation as a source of data (although the issue of detection drones Russian designers and engineers are working very fruitfully) and anti-drone guns as a device for neutralization.


And today we will talk specifically about anti-drone guns, as mobile anti-drone defense devices are commonly called in the trenches.

Everyone already knows perfectly well what this device is. Often, the external anti-drone device (RCD) is a portable device that resembles weapon. Either some kind of futuristic firearm, or even a grenade launcher. In general, it is a housing inside which microwave range generators, a transmitting path and directional antennas are installed. Well, and the batteries from which all this is powered.

The operating principle is also incredibly simple. When a UAV is visually detected, the anti-drone defense operator directs the emitters towards the drone and presses the activation button. Generators generate energy that is converted into electromagnetic radiation, which causes the operator to lose communication with the drone or the drone receiver to lose navigation satellite signals.

This is due to the fact that the signal emitted by the anti-drone gun is many times stronger than the signals from the operator’s console and satellite navigation signals, since the source is much closer to the UAV receivers. The drone simply stops receiving and executing commands and then, depending on the models, UAVs behave differently:
- begin an emergency landing;
- trying to return to the starting point according to the program;
- they hang in place until the battery runs out and try to restore communication with the operator and navigation satellites.


In any case, what happened for the sake of which everything was started: interruption of the drone’s flight mission, and in some cases, interruption of the career of the drone itself. But this takes time. And here everything depends on the battery capacity of the UAV and the anti-drone device.

Typically, UAV suppression lasts from 2 to 10 minutes. All this time, the copter is either hovering above the ground or landing, but is looking for ways to restore communication. And if at this moment the remote control runs out of battery power, the drone will simply restore communication and fly away. Or if the UAV has a powerful battery, the capacity of which exceeds the capacity of the remote control battery. Therefore, a charged battery for the remote control is like cartridges for a machine gun. Must be dry and warm.

There is one more important nuance that will be discussed when disassembling the remote control. They all work using microwave generators that are controlled by voltage. A decrease in the battery output voltage due to discharging or cooling will prevent the generator from delivering the necessary power to the antennas, which will lead to a drop in the suppression efficiency with an unpleasant result: the drone will fly away.

Of course, there are stationary remote control systems that are free of such disadvantages. But these systems need to be connected to the power supply network and generators, which looks fantastic in LBS conditions. However, such systems can do an excellent job of protecting industrial and other important facilities.

And of course, an intermediate option in the form of a mobile complex placed on a car chassis. But a car or an armored base is already an “adult” electronic warfare system, the use of which is associated with other problems.

Stationary and mobile systems, of course, are more efficient, primarily due to greater power than manual remote controls; in addition, higher-class systems can be equipped with thermal imagers and optics that allow them to operate at greater distances than manual remote controls. They make it easier to suppress and, most importantly, control the process of suppressing enemy UAVs.

However, here the question of quantity and subsequent quality arises. 10 manual remote controls per kilometer of front will create certain problems for the enemy using UAVs. 20 remote controls are guaranteed to make life very difficult, practically closing off the air. The question arises: can you imagine 20 mobile electronic warfare systems operating against drones at a distance of a kilometer? So I think it’s not possible yet.

The task of our military industry today is to saturate the advanced technology with modern means of combating drones. Then - the production of stationary anti-UAV systems in the required quantity to cover objects in the rear. This is a very difficult task, because we are not talking about tens or hundreds of remote control units. The count will be in the thousands.

But let's return to manual remote controls. The SVO brought an understanding of a new concept for the use of UAVs and forced the development of countermeasures in response. It’s unpleasant, but true: the new method of conducting combat operations with the massive use of UAVs involves maximizing the saturation of the battle line with both unmanned aerial vehicles and means to counter them.

Today, it is possible to saturate LBS as much as possible exclusively through manual remote control units, since they are cheap and easy to manufacture. Yes, this is a plus, but the fact that the range of operation of these remote control systems due to exclusively visual detection of drones does not exceed 500 meters is, alas, but it is impossible to change the situation for now.


Today, drone fighters are offered a fairly wide range of hand-held remote controls, some are purchased by the Russian Ministry of Defense, and some are purchased by the fighters themselves or with the help of volunteers. The models are quite different, and so are the reviews about them. It is worth noting that Russian developments are much more popular among “trench electronic warfare” fighters, since they have more advantages over Chinese ones.

With the help of people knowledgeable in electronic warfare issues, it was possible to make a certain rating of manual remote controls that are used in air defense systems, both domestically developed and imported from China. We will talk about current models, since in almost two years SVO some models have already gone into disrepair. history, becoming outdated literally before our eyes. Or their characteristics turned out to be too weak initially to combat drones.

Domestic remote control systems


1. LPD-801 from the company “PPSh Laboratory”, Moscow


This gun, which was very popular long before the SVO, appeared in Russia and received recognition. The company “Laboratory for Countering Industrial Espionage” has been supplying equipment since 2002, and the company was founded even earlier, in 1992.

LPD-801 is distinguished by its design, a wide range of frequencies at which suppression occurs, and the delivery set includes a spare battery with a discharge indicator. As options, it is possible to equip it with an optical, thermal imaging or collimator sight.

The disadvantages, according to those who operated this remote control, are the inconvenient shape, which makes it difficult for the operator to suppress for a long time, the small capacity of the batteries and the low power of the emitters. Well, the cost of the product is very high, about a million rubles.

Features:
Band I, MHz: 2400 ÷ 2483.5 (10 W)
Band II, MHz: 5725 ÷ 5850 (5 W)
Band III (GPS, Glonass, Beidou, Galileo), MHz: 1559 ÷ 1610 (4 W)

Range (as declared by the manufacturer): up to 1000 m
Weight: 3,5 kg (battery – 0,6 kg)
Cost: about 400 rubles.

2. “Argus-Antidron” or ARPA-600 from the company NPO “Kaysant”, Moscow


The main advantage of this remote control, which delights operators, is its shape. Not for a “rifle”, but for a “grenade launcher”, placed on the shoulder and with batteries on the back, on the belt, in a bag or backpack. It is considered the most convenient remote control for long-term control of a UAV during suppression.

It also has a greater range than most analogues due to the use of directional antennas with increased gain. There is a “machine” attached to the remote control, from which you can work like a “machine gun”.


Features:

Bands: GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BeiDou (L1), 900 MHz, Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz
Radiated power per channel: up to 30 W
Working time: up to 4 hours

Operating range: 1000-1500 m (confident suppression up to 1000 m, then depends on external conditions), according to GPS operating range up to 3 km.
Weight: 4,8 kg, of which the battery is 1,7 kg.
Cost: 480 000 rubles

3. “Harpoon-3” from the company “Automation and Programming Technologies”, St. Petersburg


"Garpun-3" is by far the most expensive remote control in Russia. The cost is above 2 million rubles, but, perhaps, this is the case when the cost is justified. "Garpun-3" covers almost all frequencies on which UAVs operate, and has 7 suppression channels.

It has practically no drawbacks, except, perhaps, the price.

"Harpoon" operates in 2 modes:
- blocking the control channel (the UAV returns to the starting point using GPS, GLONASS);
- blocking of the control channel and navigation system (the UAV makes an emergency landing).

The effective suppression range of UAVs is up to 2 km.
Weight: 6,5 kg.
Cost: 2 rubles

It has two versions, mobile and stationary. In the case of a stationary version, it is installed on a rotary mechanism controlled from a remote control.

Features:
Operating frequency ranges, MHz:

433 (430-436)
868 (863-870)
900 (902-928)
1575,42/1602
2400 (2400-2483)
5200 MHz
5800 (5725-5875)

It is used in limited quantities in the Northern Military District; there were purchases through the Ministry of Defense.

4. PARS “Stupor” from the company “Stupor”, Moscow


It features a futuristic design and ergonomic shape of the gun. In general, the PARS remote control unit (Device for activating self-rescue modes) is one of the first on the domestic market. Initially, they were intended to protect private homes from annoying drones of neighbors and curious people precisely by activating the automatic return of the UAV to the “Home” point. An additional bonus is the price of the complex, from 600 thousand rubles. The Stupor company is constantly working to improve the capabilities of its remote control systems.

Features:

Bands: GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BeiDou (L1), Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz
Range: up to 500 m
Weight: 5,5-6,5 kg
Cost from 380 to 000 rubles depending on the model

5. “REX” from the company ZALA AERО, Izhevsk


The REX remote control is interesting because it was developed by specialists who themselves create drones from the ZALA AERО company, which is perhaps the undisputed best UAV manufacturer in Russia. That is, it was created by those who are more than well versed in UAVs.

This is the world's most compact remote control and one of the lightest (3 kg). In addition, the remote control is modular, that is, it is possible to configure it for specific tasks: suppression of control channels and information transmission of drones, suppression of the navigation system, Wi-Fi channels and mobile communications. You can also optionally install a video recorder, strobe light, laser and sight.

This allows you to use the REX remote control in many situations other than working with UAVs. For example, to combat improvised explosive devices that are activated using a mobile phone signal. If suspicious objects are detected, you can block radio communication and wait for the sappers to arrive.

Remote control cannot boast of widespread use. It is also not available for free sale, possibly until all certificates are received.

Features:
Bands: 2,4 GHz, 5,8 GHz, SNS.
Operating range: up to 1200 m.
Weight: 3 kg.

It is known that a trial batch of “REX-1” was purchased by the Ministry of Defense for testing; there is no information about the use of “REX” in the Northern Military District.

6. PD-709 “Sling” from “Protection System” from Yekaterinburg


The only drawback of this system is the built-in battery. That is, 2 hours in suppression mode - and that’s it, you need to take it away and put it on charge. It can be equipped with an additional remote battery, but in my opinion this is not a complete solution to the problem.

The remote control is quite lightweight, depending on the modification it operates in 4 or 6 ranges. Optionally, the number of channels can be increased from the basic 4.

Frequency range and suppressed standards:
- GPS L1/Galileo E1/Glonass L1/BeiDou B1: 1 to 520 MHz
- Wi-Fi 2,4: from 2 to 400 MHz
- Wi-Fi 5,8: from 5 to 720 MHz
- RC868/915: 860 to 930 MHz

Operating range:
- in suppression mode up to 2 km
- in navigation lock mode up to 4 km.
Weight 5,2 kg.
Cost 417 000 rubles

7. PD-706 “Crossbow”.


Also from Yekaterinburg craftsmen, it is a more serious development than the “Sling”. The remote control has already implemented the ability to replace the battery “in the field”, and the power has been increased to a virtually record 200 W, which makes the “Crossbow” one of the most powerful remote controls. It is equipped with an optical sight, and optionally with any sighting equipment. Number of suppression channels: 8. Quite a convenient solution with the ability to connect an external 24V power source, which makes it possible to “farm” in field conditions with car batteries, for example. But the operating time from its own battery is only 1,5 hours.

Frequency range and suppressed standards:
GPS L1/Galileo E1/Glonass L1/BeiDou B1: 1 to 520 MHz
RC1200: 1100 to 1400 MHz
Wi-Fi 2,4: 2 to 400 MHz
Wi-Fi 5,8: 5 to 725 MHz
Wi-Fi 5,2: 5 to 150 MHz
RC868: 860 to 873 MHz
RC915: 902 to 928 MHz
RC438: 400 to 450 MHz

Weight: 7,5 kg
Cost: 575 000 rubles

Chinese remote control


A very funny result awaited here. At first it seemed that here it was, a huge industry in China, which was driving thousands of these remote control units. No, she sells thousands of anti-drone guns, but the assortment, to be honest, was not only surprising - it killed me on the spot.

Having spent quite a decent amount of time studying the Chinese remote control market, I found out this thing: all the dozens of models that are offered to us from the Middle Kingdom are, in fact, two basic developments.


1. "Harpy".

She is also “Combat”, “Harpoon”, “Meldana”, “Ataman”, “Ayrat”, “MX3”, “Dragoon”, “DROGUN 4”, “Dronun”, “ML-7XL” and so on ad infinitum.

One of the most common remote control units, actively traded on Avito at a price of 120-150 thousand rubles. It has many versions with large differences (from 4 to 8 channels of suppression, from 10 to 20 watts of power per channel, and so on), which allows you to label them as you please.

The advantages are the price, a wide range of designs, and strong transport cases. Possibility of mounting optics or strobe.
The downsides are frankly weak batteries and low reliability, mainly caused by poor build quality. As they told me: when you hug a Harpy into a trench because mines are flying, you can be sure that something will break. The only question is what will break. In general, operating the Harpy without a roll of metallized tape and a can of epoxy resin in stock is a very big risk.

The second disadvantage is usually called emitter antennas with a very low gain.

Features:
Range: 433, 900, GPS L1, L2, L5, WIFI 2.4G, 5.8G
Range: up to 1 000 m
Weight: 4,3 kg.

In general, Russian craftsmen have learned to refine the “Harpy” to a completely competitive state, but even without that, in the trenches of the Northern Military District it is the most common remote control. Price decides, as they say.

2. "Teltos", aka HY886.


Everything is the same, different manufacturer, but in general, more expensive than “Harpy”. There is, of course, an outright conversion from a toy, “Drone 1200,” but this is generally a frivolous experiment in stuffing electronics into the plastic body of a toy gun. But they were able to insert the generator blocks inside and hang the antennas on top.

The only thing they couldn’t do was come up with cooling, which is why the “1200s” burned in batches, because at one time they were brought in in abundance due to their cheapness.

But the Chinese would not be Chinese if they had not worked on the topic. And on later versions, the cooling unit with fans was attached directly to the product body.

In general, it is very difficult to say how many “Harpies” and “Teltos” are in circulation, because here you need to understand the basics of Chinese production. And they are as simple as five kopecks: “here and now, the rest is not important.”

That is, today there are components in warehouses for assembling 8-channel remote control units with a power of 140 W - we do it. No - it will make 6 channels and 120W in the same housings. And so on. And all this will be “Harpy” or “Teltos”. Different numbers at best, the base is the same, but can you imagine how many variations you can collect on emitters alone? And they collect! So much so that the devil will break his head later, especially if he, the devil, needs to get something from spare parts.

There are dozens of variations. And in order not to get confused themselves, the Chinese do not make different names. But this is what our traders do quite routinely. It is no secret that anyone can order a batch from manufacturers in China. A batch of anything. And the Chinese, the guys are more than simple in this regard, will give you any name you want. One that you will like, for mere pennies, without asking for any trademark registrations. It's normal, this is China.

They don't care what IT will be called where it goes. The most important thing for them is the money that went to them. The rest is secondary.

And that's exactly how all these additional titles come about. It’s especially depressing to see Ali’s “Harpoon” for 347. Which is very much “Teltos”, but under the “Harpoon” brand, but, you know, has nothing to do with the St. Petersburg development. But everyone knows that Harpoon-000 is something. Some people take full advantage of this.


This is "Harpoon-2"


And this is "Harpy"

The reliability of Chinese remote control systems cannot be compared with Russian products, this is understandable. But again, the price... And instead of one “Harpoon” on the front end there may be a dozen and a half “Harpies” of not the worst configuration. And this, you know, decides...

And no matter how much the drone fighters of the RF Armed Forces lick their lips at domestic products, I will not reveal the great secret that 7 out of 10 remote control units on LBS are “Chinese”. Alas, this is the truth from which there is no escape.

Here, of course, there is a question of price and availability, because ordering on Ali Express is often easier and more profitable in terms of money. Who is ordering? That's right, volunteer helpers who count every ruble. And therefore, no matter how luxurious the Harpoon is and how comfortable the ARPA-600 is, they are more likely to buy the same Harpy.
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    14 December 2023 05: 33
    The very first anti-drone guns were used to protect top officials of the state and captured a flying drone with an ordinary net wink
    1. +1
      14 December 2023 07: 03
      Drone protection should be divided according to drone classes. The most dangerous and cause the greatest losses are small front-line FPV drones, such as the infamous "Baba Yaga". All these “anti-drone guns” as protection against such drones are complete bullshit. Why? Yes, because they (anti-drone guns) must be used by a person in conditions where a drone is visually detected by a person. A person always sees a drone when it is already too late; the drone is either on the way or is already attacking. In such nervous conditions, it is actually too late to use an “anti-drone gun” that is not at hand. Thus, automatic drone detection, selection and...automatic destruction should be in the foreground! The most important thing is all this: both detection and destruction of the drone must be carried out without human participation! That is, combined, small-sized means of detecting and selecting small drones should be developed, based on opto-selection, photo-contrast - heat and radiometry, and these detection means should be integrated or connected to automatic means of destroying drones, based on Gatling-type machine gun installations. This is the only way to protect the front line and equipment from FPV drones.
      1. +3
        14 December 2023 12: 15
        Baba Yaga is a huge drone
  2. 0
    14 December 2023 06: 08
    I've never heard of shotguns being used against drones.
    Has no one tried?
    1. -1
      14 December 2023 06: 20
      Quote: Vadim_2
      I've never heard of shotguns being used against drones.
      What kind of drones are we talking about specifically? Those like “Baba Yagas” who drop mines from a great height, so the shot will never reach them, and if it is a high-speed kamikaze drone, then this fighter himself becomes a “kamikaze” too. Calculate the speed of a human reaction and compare it with the speed of an approaching kamikaze drone.
      1. 0
        14 December 2023 06: 38
        Quote: venaya
        the shot won't reach

        Have you heard anything about a warhead that explodes in the air and scatters damaging elements over a long distance - balls and steel rods at a certain height, as do shells and air defense missiles?
        1. -1
          14 December 2023 06: 45
          Quote: Luminman
          Have you heard anything about a warhead that explodes in the air and scatters damaging elements over a long distance - balls and steel rods at a certain height, as do shells and air defense missiles?
          And what is this, standard ammunition for hunting shotguns? This ammunition is standardly used in many other types of weapons, but I have never heard of it being used specifically in shotguns. Long range requires more powerful charges that standard shotguns cannot withstand due to their strength.
          1. +1
            14 December 2023 06: 55
            Quote: venaya
            charges that standard shotguns cannot withstand due to their strength

            What do shotguns have to do with it? The idea is to spread damaging elements over a large area... The most primitive example is a large shotgun with a barrel diameter of 100 mm and a length of two meters. What's wrong with this?
            1. +3
              14 December 2023 07: 12
              Quote: Luminman
              The most primitive example is a large shotgun with trunk diameter 100 mm and length two meters. What's wrong with this?
              I am not satisfied with the disrespect for the basics of the Russian language and strange and particularly free interpretations of the very concept of “shotgun”! “with a barrel diameter of 100 mm” - how can this one hundred percent gun be attributed to the fairly clear concept of “shotgun”? I think that it is necessary to choose the expressions used more accurately and clearly, and that’s all...
              And in this case, the use of specialized ammunition, as well as the means of their delivery, so I not only agree on this score, but I myself have written about the same thing.
              1. +1
                14 December 2023 07: 48
                Quote: venaya
                with a barrel diameter of 100 mm" - how can this one hundred percent gun be classified as a fairly clear concept of "shotgun"?

                A shotgun is a very vague concept; they can reach a caliber of 50 mm, i.e. is almost half short of the 100 mm I stated. You don't like the definition shotgun, then I’ll put it in quotation marks, meaning by this concept the dispersion of damaging elements over a large area. By the way, in the armies of some states, weapons with a caliber of 30 mm or more were already considered a cannon... In your opinion, is 30 mm a cannon or a machine gun?
                1. 0
                  14 December 2023 08: 05
                  Quote: Luminman
                  .. 30 mm - is it a cannon or a machine gun?
                  A 30 mm auto-firing cannon is an automatic cannon that fires cannon ammunition, unlike bulleta weapon that shoots both bullets and pellets - apparently everything depends only on the caliber.
              2. +1
                14 December 2023 10: 52
                I am not satisfied with the disrespect for the basics of the Russian language and strange and particularly free interpretations of the very concept of “shotgun”! “with a barrel diameter of 100 mm” - how can this one hundred percent gun be attributed to the fairly clear concept of “shotgun”?

                Especially for “experts” of the Russian language in general and shotguns in particular - a drawing for the article “Shotgun”. Sytin's military encyclopedia.
                1. -2
                  14 December 2023 11: 06
                  Quote: Dekabrist
                  .. drawing for the article “Shotgun”
                  Thank you for the really impressive picture, there are also very impressive “pellets” on the left side of the picture! In fact, the ammunition of cannons used to always include buckshot, we remember the Battle of Borodino and this happened in the 2nd World War. It’s just that such powerful forests have never been shot with such pellets before; they write that it was economically more profitable to use hewn stone blocks together with impressive wads to destroy fortresses. Try reading about it, it's a very, very interesting topic...
                  1. 0
                    14 December 2023 11: 18
                    There you have some very impressive “pellets” on the left in the picture!

                    Especially for artillery connoisseurs. These are decorative cannonballs and are not suitable for shooting. They were cast 248 years after the cannon was cast - in 1834 in St. Petersburg at the Byrd iron foundry. A cannon, let me remind you - in 1586.
                    1. 0
                      14 December 2023 11: 30
                      Quote: Dekabrist
                      These are decorative cannonballs and are not suitable for shooting. They were cast 248 years after the cannon was cast - in 1834 in St. Petersburg at the Byrd iron foundry. Gun, let me remind you - in 1586.
                      You see - they finally admitted that the term “Shotgun” in the picture is a joke! I knew this information about the history of this artillery installation and its use from early childhood, and you apparently read about it for the first time, it happens...
                      1. +1
                        14 December 2023 11: 39
                        I knew information about the history of this artillery installation and its use from early childhood

                        Why are you telling yourself that you know something? Your knowledge is poor. There are no “comic terms” in the military encyclopedia. In Sytin’s Military Encyclopedia, articles on artillery were edited by A. V. von Schwartz, although this hardly tells you anything, but still.
                      2. -1
                        14 December 2023 11: 52
                        Quote: Dekabrist
                        There are no “comic terms” in the military encyclopedia.
                        What a pity. This means that you are, in principle, not very familiar with information flows; there are cases when the volume of misinformation exceeds the volume of useful information. I remind you of the sayings of the grandson of two rabbis, K. Marx: “Question everything.” So look for the most truthful information and be sure to try to think it through deeply with your own head, if this is possible, of course.
                      3. 0
                        14 December 2023 12: 16
                        Question everything

                        You definitely need to watch episode 23 of James Bond. There is an episode about you, when they read out a psychological portrait of agent 007: “Pathological denial of authority due to deep childhood trauma.”
                        That's probably enough for today. Still, conducting educational work among you is hard work. So see you again.
                      4. 0
                        14 December 2023 14: 09
                        Quote: Dekabrist
                        There's an episode there about you, ... "Pathological denial of authority ...
                        In general, I understand you: neither the essence of the article, nor the essence of the part of the problem being discussed, you have no questions at all, You are discussing your opponent and nothing more. You don’t understand the specific issues under discussion by appealing to your authorities; you’re too lazy to figure it out on your own, or maybe it’s impossible to figure it out on your own. Excuse me, but why do I need such an opponent? You and I have completely different intellectual levels, look for an equal in your level, it will be easier for you.
                      5. 0
                        14 December 2023 16: 31
                        You and I have completely different intellectual levels.

                        Here I completely agree with you. Here you are to the point. It’s just that I, as someone at a higher level of development, am empathic and sometimes subject to attacks of compassion for our smaller friends, vegetating in the abyss of ignorance.
                      6. 0
                        14 December 2023 16: 52
                        Quote: Dekabrist
                        яAs advanced, empathic and sometimes subject to attacks of compassion for our smaller friends, vegetating in the abyss of ignorance.
                        Do you have any questions regarding the topic of the article or are you coming here to fool around? You are bored, women don’t like... What is the reason for your endless chatter with permanent personalizations and completely unrelated to the topic of this article, not on the topic of the article? Your level of knowledge is quite indicative and is of no interest.
                      7. 0
                        14 December 2023 16: 58
                        Do you have any questions regarding the topic of this article?

                        I don't have any questions for you. Well, really, what questions might I have for you, especially on the topic of the article?
    2. +1
      14 December 2023 12: 49
      Used, often in conjunction with an anti-drone gun. The latter stops the drone, and then finishes off the duck with shot
    3. 0
      14 December 2023 13: 28
      Quote: Vadim_2
      I've never heard of shotguns being used against drones.
      Has no one tried?

      According to some comrades participating in the SVO, there were attempts! I just can’t say anything specific about the results!
      1. 0
        14 December 2023 14: 15
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        .. there were attempts! I just can’t say anything specific about the results!
        If there were at least partially positive results, many people would know about it. The simplest calculations show that this direction is hopeless, the human reaction speed is low and the drone’s flight speed is enormous.
  3. 0
    14 December 2023 06: 11
    The only drawback of this system is the built-in battery. That is, 2 hours in suppression mode - that’s all, you need to take it away and put it on charge. It can be equipped with an additional remote battery, but in my opinion this is not a complete solution to the problem.
    A completely incomprehensible statement...
    All, absolutely all portable devices must be equipped with both built-in batteries (and sometimes, if necessary, additional high-energy modern capacitors) and additional quick-change batteries and also be able to connect to the on-board network of vehicles, mobile generators, or simply to existing ones. other networks. There is no need to limit yourself only to portable energy sources with limited capacity; this is simply unacceptable.
    In general, I suggest remembering that the number of recharges for any battery is strictly limited, nothing lasts forever.
  4. +2
    14 December 2023 07: 00
    The weak point of the remote control is the need for visual detection of the UAV. Considering that the optics of a UAV are an order of magnitude better than the vision of any observer, this is like looking for a “needle in a haystack” or the old fashioned way by sound.
    Although what could be easier is to make a simple receiver and direction finder that can be integrated with radio stations to solve the triangulation problem of detecting the UAV itself and identifying it at the location of the drone operator.
    1. +2
      14 December 2023 11: 42
      Quote: Vita VKO

      Although what could be easier is to make a simple receiver and direction finder that can be integrated with radio stations to solve the triangulation problem of detecting the UAV itself and identifying it at the location of the drone operator.

      The problem is that to suppress the drone, the same range is used in which the direction-finding signal is located. During the process of scanning the air, a drone can be detected, but after the suppression process begins, information about the location of the target will already be clogged with its own interference. You can try turning off the interference for short periods of time, synchronously activating the direction finder to receive information about the movement of the target. The simplest device is an output to headphones of an audio signal from a directional receiving antenna on the drone itself. Based on the strength of the sound, it will be possible to adjust the direction of the impact, according to the principle: hot-cold.
      1. 0
        14 December 2023 11: 54
        Quote from cpls22
        The problem is that to suppress the drone, the same range is used in which the direction-finding signal is located

        There is no problem here. It has long been solved in all electronic warfare systems. Radiation always occurs in pulsed mode. Reception and transmission alternate. The received signal is always used as a standard, which is then amplified and modified. Well, the signal duty cycle is also selected in the laboratory to most effectively solve the electronic warfare problem for each standard.
        1. 0
          14 December 2023 12: 19
          Quote: Vita VKO

          There is no problem here. It has long been solved in all electronic warfare systems. .

          Then it is even more possible to use anti-drone guns without visual contact - by listening to the direction finder signal in headphones. Cheap and cheerful.
    2. +2
      17 December 2023 22: 47
      Quote: Vita VKO
      The weak point of the remote control is the need for visual detection of the UAV. Considering that the optics of a UAV are an order of magnitude better than the vision of any observer, this is like looking for a “needle in a haystack” or the old fashioned way by sound.
      Although what could be easier is to make a simple receiver and direction finder that can be integrated with radio stations to solve the triangulation problem of detecting the UAV itself and identifying it at the location of the drone operator.

      Good!
      There is already a solution for detecting and targeting drones.
      Sighting system "PIGION" or "DAGGER" - also known as SMASH 2000L.
      The principle is as simple as two pennies:
      The operator locks onto the target.
      The sight takes it for auto tracking, after which it gives the operator an aiming point.
      The operator presses the trigger and brings the sight to the aiming point.
      When the sight calculates that a hit is possible, it gives a command to the release blocking solenoid and the weapon fires.

      Everything is simple and has been on tanks for a long time, and on ships since the First World War, but now THIS fits into the sight no larger than a night light.
      Ensures the defeat of “drones” (including FPV) at distances when they can still strike - the same “Mavics” are shot down with a bang.

      "PIGION" is in service with all regular infantry and special brigades of the IDF.
      Successfully used in the Gaza Strip - this is how a company of the 51st battalion of the Golani brigade repelled a massive drone attack.

      I took it from the open spaces, I don’t know how much of this is true.
  5. +3
    14 December 2023 07: 14
    Airat-100 (Harpy) may be simpler in some ways, but in tests they show results and actually jam the UAV so that the operator loses control, and all these crafts from Russian manufacturers only work in advertising videos from their owners.

    Look at the tests on YouTube, Airat-100 for 180 thousand is an order of magnitude more effective than any of our guns for 2 million.
  6. +1
    14 December 2023 07: 16
    . 10 manual remote controls per kilometer of front will create certain problems for the enemy using UAVs. 20 remote controls are guaranteed to make life very difficult, practically closing off the air. The question arises: can you imagine 20 mobile electronic warfare systems operating against drones at a distance of a kilometer? So I think it’s not possible yet.

    So, you can buy from the Chinese if our industry is not able to produce it?

    What we have. 815 km of front. This is 16300 anti-drone guns. At Chinese prices, this is about 2 billion rubles. But we must keep in mind that some of this amount is already at the front. And you need to purchase less than this quantity. So it’s possible to completely cover the sky with at least Chinese remote controls.
    1. +1
      14 December 2023 07: 49
      Why are there so many “guns” per 1 km? If its range is on average 500m... request Damn you scribbled...some kind of incomprehensible rating
  7. -3
    14 December 2023 08: 02
    If a powerful stream of air is sent towards the kamikaze, it will lose stability and explode to the side.
    1. 0
      14 December 2023 08: 15
      Quote from pavel.tipingmail.com
      If... send powerful airflow, ..
      And if you direct a less powerful but more significant flow of solid particles, then in this case both the distance of destruction of the “kamikaze” and the probability of this defeat itself increases. From an energy point of view, it will be much cheaper, and the probability of defeat will increase simply unthinkably!
  8. -1
    14 December 2023 10: 08
    and when will we finally move away from the dependence of the Chinese? Have we really lost all our craftsmen? - I don’t believe this. We just need to gather the team into one fist (remember Stalin’s famous “sharashkas” and remove the corruption component! and in a couple of months these drones will appear on our front lines in the required quantities
  9. 0
    14 December 2023 13: 22
    Author, do you at least follow the reports from the front? But the fact is that “trench electronic warfare” is effective where the enemy does not use UAVs en masse, where our artillery and air defense are in full control. If this is not the case, the Ukrainian Armed Forces ignore (quickly ask again) our “trench electronic warfare." Look at the messages from the front, where soldiers simply cannot come out of cover due to the enemy’s massive use of UAVs of all sizes and classes. The use of more powerful and effective mobile electronic warfare near the front line is disabled by artillery, MLRS.
  10. 0
    14 December 2023 17: 07
    Why is there still no means of electronic detection of drones? It's technically not that difficult:
    1. Any drone emits at well-known frequencies. A conventional direction finder can detect its coordinates
    2. Any drone has input and output paths that include semiconductors. Directional nonlinear radar can detect them
    3. The drone, as a material object, has a density that differs from the density of air. Millimeter wave radar to help. For example, a counter-battery radar type
    4. Any drone carries optics. When irradiated with a laser, it produces a glare, and lidar (laser locator) can give very accurate target coordinates.
    5. Well, of course, the optical detection channel. And you can attach a computer with a technical vision program to the camera.
    All of these devices are available and are not that expensive. It’s best to combine several, or even all, channels at once for reliability. You can install the system on a self-propelled platform, for example, a simple front edge conveyor or even a pickup truck. And at the same time, pair with the detection system a destruction system - a simple launcher of an unguided missile with remote detonation. The remote fuse is programmed before the missile is launched from the detection system. A shrapnel warhead is placed on the missile. When detonated, it hits the drone with a cone of flying destructive elements. The detonation point must be calculated so that even a maneuvering drone falls into the cone of destructive elements.
    A more advanced system will already operate autonomously, scanning the sky, selecting a drone to fire, and automatically launching missiles. On heavier vehicle-mounted systems, it is possible to provide several missiles on the launch pad.
    1. -1
      14 December 2023 17: 12
      Obviously, the self-propelled platform must maneuver so as not to come under enemy artillery fire - the drone operator can detect the missile launch point before its death.
      An even more advanced system is the launch of a kamikaze drone or a guided missile (in fact, this is also a drone))) to destroy an enemy drone and control the missile or anti-drone via a radio channel. But the cost of such a system increases sharply. It is necessary to develop a means of destruction
    2. 0
      14 December 2023 17: 15
      Quote: futurohunter
      Why is there still no means of electronic detection of drones?

      Why not, there is. Filatov, for example, constantly praises Bulat.
  11. 0
    14 December 2023 22: 13
    [quote the range of operation of these remote controls due to purely visual detection of drones does not exceed 500 meters - alas, but it is not yet possible to change the situation.][/quote]
    Why is it impossible to understand? Remote control units have already been developed with a built-in or external direction finder for the operating frequency of the UAV transmitter, which can be detected by it at a distance of up to 4 km. And an optical sight with high magnification will help you visually see the drone and point the emitting antennas of the remote control at it. Increasing the power of the emitting channel to 200 W is also not a problem. Therefore, such a manual remote control can confidently block drones at a distance of 2000-3000 meters. Therefore, it depends only on our state and its officials how soon these remote control systems will appear in the trenches of the Northern Military District among our soldiers. Without effective remote control systems and their required quantity, the problem of combating UAVs cannot be solved.
  12. 0
    15 December 2023 01: 51
    In general, it’s informative, but there are a lot of errors: LPD-801 from the company “PPSh Laboratory”, Moscow, about a million or about 400? Also, the author above classifies mobile and stationary remote controls as one group, and below equates mobile ones with manual ones.
  13. 0
    16 December 2023 00: 28
    As the daughter of an officer, I am interested in the following: the form factor in which it is manufactured. They're all acting like crazy. But the trick is that this is not a light device for long-term target tracking, i.e. the operator must stand and shine into the sky without observing the surrounding reality. To hell with it, is your hand getting tired? To hell with it, with replaceable batteries and carrying it in a suitcase through the trenches and crawling? And to hell with the incomprehensible effect of illumination by the side lobes of the “directional” antenna into the brain - there is initially a db foil hat, grounded and quiet foliage in camouflage...
    Generally speaking, nowadays it is already possible to have cheap optics with output to the screen of a tablet or the same glasses/box for a drone. And you can even use a powerful laser flashlight, both in the UV and in the thermal range. And even replaceable accounts can be separated from the device, thereby making it omnivorous. And all this can be done on a turret and in combination with a frame backpack, possibly suspended/mounted on the operator’s shoulders/back.
    I understand that at a distance of 200m it is the gun that provides maneuverability and the operator does not get tired. But in the technical characteristics there is even a 2 km range - is it all at hand, seriously?

    and finally, about the automation of support and long-term duty - what is it like without computerization? What about sound alerts and warnings about the presence of other drones in the area?
    Oh. It seems to me that the stripes that were unable to achieve digital communications owe a lot to the fatherland.
    1. 0
      25 March 2024 17: 43
      Quote from point
      I understand that at a distance of 200m it is the gun that provides maneuverability and the operator does not get tired. But in the technical characteristics there is even a 2 km range - is it all at hand, seriously?

      All these electronic warfare guns are only suitable within line of sight, for example during the day in a field, but what if at night or somewhere in the forest in the bushes? and then to think that a person is able to timely detect a small moving object in the sky is somehow too optimistic, this is what kind of vision you need to have and what kind of reaction. and most importantly - today drones are exposed to electronic warfare, but tomorrow they will be, or what?
  14. 0
    25 March 2024 18: 20
    What about fishing nets????
  15. 0
    31 March 2024 01: 34
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCA_pteLdAo