Drone interception system "Molot"

48 420 37
Drone interception system "Molot"
UAV- an interceptor from the "Hammer" system


In recent years, the domestic defense industry has been actively engaged in the creation of means to counter unmanned aerial vehicles aviation. A variety of means are proposed for suppressing or destroying UAVs, including interceptor aircraft. A new model of this kind, called "Molot", was recently presented. It is part of an interception system resembling a portable anti-aircraft missile complex.



Hybrid system


A promising system for intercepting and destroying UAVs was created by Moscow-based Nova Labs. The development of this product began recently, but the exact timeframe for completing the work is not specified. The finished sample was presented just a few weeks ago.

The first news about Molot was in early November. The developer demonstrated the appearance of the system as a whole and its main components, and also revealed its main tactical and technical characteristics. In addition, videos from the tests were published, which included footage of the unmanned interceptor's flight and footage from its own video camera.

A few days ago, a new video from the testing ground appeared on specialized resources. This time, the system operator was caught on camera, preparing it for use and launching the UAV. No new information about the project was disclosed.

By now, the "Molot" has successfully passed all necessary tests and confirmed its calculated tactical and technical characteristics. Work is underway to improve the design, and serial production is being prepared.


Starting device

It is expected that in the near future the Molot systems will be delivered to units and formations involved in the current Special Operation. These products will complement other means of combating UAVs and will help the troops cope with the current threat. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that some Molots have already been tested in real combat conditions.

Interceptor in the pipe


The Molot product is positioned as a portable anti-aircraft missile system. Also, some publications use the original term "anti-aircraft electric missile system". Both definitions correspond to reality and to a certain extent reveal the essence of the project.

Like MANPADS, the Molot system is designed to intercept air targets. Light and medium UAVs of various classes and types are considered as targets for it, the destruction of which by full-fledged SAMs / MANPADS is difficult or impractical. At the same time, the architecture, composition of components and capabilities of Molot are optimized for solving such combat tasks.

"Molot" consists of two main parts: a reusable launcher and an interceptor drone. In addition, the delivery set includes auxiliary means necessary for the operation and use of the complex. The system, assembled or in combat-ready condition, has limited dimensions and weight, simplifying its transportation.

The launcher is made in the form of a closed tube at the back with two external handles, a butt and a sight. In the combat position, with the UAV installed, its length does not exceed 700-800 mm, and its weight is only a few kilograms. The system does not impose any special requirements on the user.


Launching the interceptor

An original design UAV is used as an interceptor munition. It is built in a cylindrical body with a hemispherical head fairing. In the central part of the body there are X-shaped planes, at the ends of which there are compact engine nacelles. Inside the body there is a homing head, control devices, a warhead and a battery.

The Molot UAV has limited dimensions and weight. Its launch weight, depending on the configuration, does not exceed 1,5-2 kg. The small and light drone is quite easy to handle and prepare for takeoff.

The device is fully electric. Flight is carried out by four motors with propellers located with a collapse outward relative to the body. The UAV is capable of vertical takeoff, hovering and horizontal flight. High maneuverability has also been achieved.

In flight, the UAV develops a speed of up to 50 m/s. The combat radius depends on the type of target. When working on large unmanned aircraft, it reaches 1 km. Interception of copters with a diameter of up to 500-700 mm is possible at distances of 350-400 m, and the operating altitude reaches 200 m.

The head of the "Hammer" contains a thermal imager with accompanying electronics. In essence, the UAV is equipped with an infrared homing head, capable of independently tracking a target and guiding the aircraft to it. It is claimed that the project implements the "launch and forget" principle.


View from the IR seeker of a drone

To hit the target, a high-explosive warhead weighing 500 g is installed. The detonation occurs when touching the target or when passing it at a minimum distance. Kinetic interception is also possible - the UAV hits the target with acceleration, causing significant damage to it.

Proven effectiveness


The Molot UAV interception system has passed some of the required tests and demonstrated its capabilities. The ability to hit typical targets has been confirmed and high performance has been demonstrated.

A recent video showed tests in which the Hammer was successfully used against a popular quadcopter model. The aerial target was at an altitude of about 200 m and was moving at a speed of 80 km/h. The operator of the interception system quickly detected the target and launched his drone. The Hammer covered the distance to the target in just 5 seconds and hit it with a precise strike.

The new "anti-aircraft electric missile system" has several interesting features that provide high performance characteristics and also achieve advantages over other weapons. Thanks to this, "Molot" can really be an effective means of combating UAVs of different classes.

The Molot project is based on the idea of ​​intercepting one drone with another. This method of interception, from the point of view of technical and economic parameters, is the most profitable and convenient. The development of a specialized interceptor drone significantly increases the effectiveness of combat operations.


"Hammer" in flight to the target

"Molot" should hit only a certain range of air targets, while other objects would be too difficult a target. Such specialization and refusal of universality allowed to limit the required level of technical characteristics, as well as simplify the design of the system. As a result, it was possible to obtain a favorable ratio of efficiency and cost.

Nova Labs claims that an original control system was created for the Molot, which actually performs the functions of the seeker. This system is built on available components and demonstrates high efficiency in searching for and tracking air targets at long distances.

The capability of kinetic interception of air targets has been declared and successfully demonstrated. This means that the "optical seeker" of the new UAV has high accuracy and is capable of guiding it to small targets. At the same time, the possibility of using a warhead with an explosive substance is not excluded. The warhead in combination with high guidance accuracy additionally increases combat effectiveness.

The proposed method of launching an unmanned interceptor is also of interest. The operator must use a manual launcher of the simplest design. Such a device allows one to do without a launch pad and launch the UAV directly from the hands from almost any place.

Great future


Thus, Nova Labs combined a number of well-known solutions and ideas, and the result was the emergence of an interesting and promising UAV interception complex. The Molot product is already undergoing tests, demonstrating its capabilities and confirming the calculated characteristics.

It can be expected that in the near future the new interception system will be deployed to the Special Operations area. There it will be able to demonstrate its capabilities outside the training grounds and will also help reduce enemy unmanned aircraft. If the "Molot" copes with such tests, then in the future it will be able to become part of the standard equipment of units.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    3 December 2024 04: 23
    Cool thing. Considering the possibility of kinetic interception, the missile itself can be reusable.
    If everything goes well, it will definitely become one of the most sought after in the troops.
    1. +1
      3 December 2024 05: 26
      In the future, it could become part of the standard equipment of units.
      Only FOR!
      1. -1
        3 December 2024 08: 24
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        in the future it could become part of the standard equipment of units

        It will be expensive! You can't get by with just one "electric rocket"! The other day, there was information on central TV that the fighters in the SVO came up with a special buckshot cartridge for "Kalashnikovs", they load it with it and get an effect! Like, you insert a magazine with standard bullets - you shoot a Bandera guy... replace it with a magazine with "buckshot" - you shoot down the "birdie"! But I didn't understand this information from the very beginning! I didn't understand half of it! Maybe someone else was more informed? what
        1. 0
          3 December 2024 12: 39
          Purely theoretically it is possible (the effectiveness is unclear, though), but won’t the muzzle compensator get in the way???
        2. +1
          3 December 2024 14: 13
          The soldiers at the front are making cartridges for Kalashnikovs, a small company is developing interceptor drones. And what the Russian defense industry mentioned at the beginning of the article is doing in this field - it is unclear whether the General Staff and the Ministry want something anti-drone from the industry - we do not know
    2. +2
      3 December 2024 10: 17
      Quote: malyvalv
      Considering the possibility of kinetic interception, the missile itself may be reusable.

      Yes, it would be nice to place a parachute pneumatic release in the tail.
      1. +1
        3 December 2024 12: 50
        Quote from cpls22
        It would be nice to place a parachute pneumatic release in the tail.

        Or maybe “pneumatic ejection” of a HE warhead on a cable? what
        1. 0
          3 December 2024 14: 11
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Quote from cpls22
          It would be nice to place a parachute pneumatic release in the tail.

          Or maybe “pneumatic ejection” of a HE warhead on a cable? what

          What is the cable for? what
          1. 0
            3 December 2024 18: 12
            Quote from cpls22
            What is the cable for?

            Well... you can tie a bow... or a flag... so that the red lines don't cross!
            And in another project, the cable was intended to ensure that the towed warhead exploded at the proper distance from the UAV!
  2. 0
    3 December 2024 08: 13
    Holy shit! What's rocket-like about it? fool The Ministry of Education has gone completely nuts! People don't know how to properly call a ground-based "self-propelled cart" or "anti-aircraft" UAV (and they call them, to the extent of their illiteracy... either a ground (sea) drone or an "electric missile"...); and the Ministry keeps a tight-lipped silence! stop
    1. -2
      3 December 2024 08: 57
      "Zenitair UAV"
      So the S-400 missile also falls under the definition of an anti-aircraft UAV. An anti-aircraft missile. There is no pilot either.
      And what's wrong with the name electric rocket? This device is a rocket. It flies like a rocket, not like an airplane or a helicopter (copter). Electric, yes.
      1. +1
        3 December 2024 09: 44
        Quote: malyvalv
        So the S-400 missile also falls under the definition of an anti-aircraft UAV. An anti-aircraft missile. There is no pilot either.

        Well, I won't argue too much... if there's a desire! If you want, you can stretch an owl onto a globe! (as the "folk" say!) That's why "rocket" bullets for the "Vulcan" keep appearing, even though they aren't rockets... "fast-burning rockets" for the German "Hammer", even though they aren't rockets! So... any nonsense at the request of the "working people"! (PS I once mentioned that there was a time when they were planning the Kh-101 cruise missile with a turboprop engine and pusher "propellers"! Oh my! The puppets immediately hatched and started "waxing" me... like, what kind of nonsense is this? A rocket with propellers?!... And what's going on here? Some "uncle" told the "teenagers" - you have to listen!)
        1. +1
          4 December 2024 03: 15
          It seems to me that the rocket's propulsion system is not essential. This Hammer is essentially an anti-aircraft missile.
          In my distant childhood in the late 60s, on the wave of space popularity, I had a toy. In the shape of a rocket. Water was poured in and then a rubber bag inside was pumped up with air using a bicycle pump. The valve opened, the water flowed out with a whistle and the rocket flew. Flew high. It was a cool toy.
          1. +1
            4 December 2024 09: 15
            Quote: malyvalv
            It was a cool toy.

            I'm happy for you! I didn't have one! Otherwise I would have been inventing combat missiles as a child! But your toy missile was driven by a rocket engine! It may be primitive and simple, but it uses the principle of a rocket (jet) engine!
            Quote: malyvalv
            the rocket's propulsion system is not critical

            Yeeeessss...??? belay If the grandfather did not have a penis, then it is, in fact, the grandmother! A rocket can rightfully (!) be called a product with an engine (propulsion) using the principle of rocket (jet) movement! But in "everyday life" there are many objects that bear the name "rocket, rocket", being not such! There were "caseless" cartridges "Rocket ball", cars "Rocket", hydrofoil vessels "Rocket" and so on! There are also many UAVs in a cylindrical body with a pushing propeller and having a "rocket-like" appearance, but they are not called rockets or electric rockets!
            1. 0
              4 December 2024 12: 26
              An airplane, a car, or a boat can be jet-propelled. Should we call them rockets too?
              If a cruise missile, which is essentially a UAV with wings, is called a missile, then this device has even more right to be called a missile.
              1. +1
                4 December 2024 14: 04
                How neglected you have everything!
                Quote: malyvalv
                An airplane, a car, or a boat can be jet-propelled. Should we call them rockets too?

                I'll reveal some mind-blowing information for you! Jet planes have existed for a long time and are called "jet planes"! But you (!)... can call a plane a rocket, since you don't hide your cultural "baggage"! If somewhere someone presents a "car" with a turbojet engine... or a boat with a corresponding engine, then such "products" can be called jet! But for now I don't see them around me and there is no need to upset the tongue!
                Quote: malyvalv
                If a cruise missile, which is essentially a UAV with wings, is called a missile

                I will share with you the information that at the "dawn of their appearance" cruise missiles were called "aircraft-projectiles"! But someone wanted to "call" them "cruise missiles", as someone called a hydrofoil vessel a "Rocket"! You can also notice that gunpowder rockets (!) with wings were described in military treatises of the 16th century! And here is an "illustration" ... Why not a rocket? But for some reason, all "interested parties" call it a UAV!
                1. -1
                  4 December 2024 22: 14
                  That's what I'm talking about. Nobody calls cars with jet engines rockets.
                  If we analyze what a rocket is and what it is not, then first of all it is a product with a thrust much greater than its own weight, usually launched vertically or at an angle if it is necessary to ensure a ballistic trajectory.
                  What is in the picture is not a rocket but actually a missile aircraft or a UAV since it uses wings from the moment of launch.
                  The hammer is a rocket, not a copter or UAV.
                  1. +1
                    4 December 2024 22: 22
                    Quote: malyvalv
                    The hammer is a rocket, not a copter or a UAV.

                    Rocket hammer? belay belay belay Well...What can I say? "Blessed is he who believes!" But I'd rather pass by this whim...
      2. 0
        3 December 2024 12: 19
        It flies like a rocket, not like an airplane or helicopter (copter).

        Flies exactly like a copter
        1. 0
          4 December 2024 03: 16
          More like a Falcon 9 rocket. Which flies like a rocket but can return to earth.
      3. +1
        3 December 2024 16: 00
        At least wikiHow on what a rocket is and how it flies.
    2. 0
      3 December 2024 09: 28
      And you can't call it an electric projectile if you don't like "electric rocket"?
      Or are there only artillery shells? But there are also such shells - sports training equipment, barbells, weights and various throwing.
      1. 0
        3 December 2024 10: 26
        Quote: Askold65
        But can't it be called an electric projectile?

        Well, why not call a piece of sports equipment a projectile? I suppose that the word "projectile" is derived from "equip, equipment"! It is quite possible that when bombards fired cannonballs, the word "projectiles" was not used! But when hollow spheres began to be equipped with gunpowder and a fuse tube, then projectiles and bombs appeared...
        And "by and large" why not use the words: drone interceptor, UAV interceptor...? Even lictric, even gasoline!
  3. +1
    3 December 2024 09: 18
    In flight, the UAV reaches speeds of up to 50 m/s.

    Maximum speed is 180 km/h. Against some drones it is enough, for others - not. Quadcopters can have their own speed under 150.
    Interception of copters with a diameter of up to 500-700 mm is possible at distances of 350-400 m, and the operating altitude reaches 200 m.

    I wonder what kind of camera is in there. It is one of the most expensive components, a lot depends on it.
  4. 0
    3 December 2024 10: 57
    Nonsense, another money grab, first you find a UAV, target designation, then depending on the range you need funds, and the UAV does not stand still, there you need a shotgun at the last stage and networks, and you look for a needle in a haystack with a device for 200-500 thousand rubles laughing
    1. +1
      3 December 2024 12: 44
      No, it's not nonsense, you just need to correctly define the "target audience". If you're chasing disposable FPVs, then it's expensive, as I understand it. But if it's a "Baba Yaga" or a scout, in a word, a reusable device, then the goal is quite worthy. There, too, the equipment is not cheap, one is worth the other.
  5. +1
    3 December 2024 11: 10
    As we see, the eternal disease of our design bureaus: to mold a doll from what is available. Under no circumstances attract people or ideas from outside, do not release money to the side.

    In this case, they placed the electronic filling and algorithms of the MANPADS on surrogate carriers of UAVs. Why did this become possible? Because the electronics became much cheaper. The transfer of MANPADS technologies to a new element base can only be welcomed.
    .
    Why is this bad? Firstly, the resource of lithium batteries and electric motors is limited. And the drone is disposable. When Zelensky gives 5000 UAVs to the front per day, our anti-drones will simply not be enough.
    Secondly, shooting down a thousand dollar drone with a $10 anti-drone is ruinous.
    Thirdly, the MANPADS software is not very suitable for anti-drone, which we can see from the article materials. But, apparently, they don’t have their own ideas, their own programmers have been driven out by effective managers long ago, and they will never take anyone from outside.
    .
    Overall, the developers have made a huge step forward, but due to the scarcity of resources at their disposal, they have chosen less than effective solutions and are still lagging behind the needs of the front, which even needs at least a thousand of these rocket launchers a day.
    1. +1
      3 December 2024 12: 34
      Quote: also a doctor
      Shooting down a thousand dollar drone with a $10 anti-drone is ruinous.

      Here, a differentiated approach is important. Small copters -- yes, they are ruinous. But like "Baba Yaga", reconnaissance and attack UAVs of the aircraft type -- why not? But against them, instead of an expensive IR homing head, it is quite possible to get by with a radio command guidance method.
    2. +1
      3 December 2024 14: 34
      This is not a design bureau from the Ministry of Defense, but a medium-sized company, which apparently used to deal with all sorts of tracking and security systems, decided to also offer something based on its resources. Whether our design bureaus are involved in anti-drone issues, whether the Ministry of Defense can even formulate a request is a secret.
    3. +1
      3 December 2024 21: 46
      But it's better than nothing. UAVs are developing very quickly, especially as attack weapons, while countermeasures are lagging behind, and sometimes are more expensive. Air defense systems were not ready to counter small UAVs and groups of dozens of UAVs, and UAVs with AI or seeker guidance and the ability to operate in a swarm are on the way. And all this in just 2-3 years, and countermeasures that are highly effective, widespread, and inexpensive, capable of closing the sky from these hellish midges, have not appeared.
    4. 0
      5 December 2024 20: 07
      Well done. Both the technical side and the business model were described. The company needs a grant of 25 million for six months. They will hire specialists in the means of destruction and detection. Disposability. This critical drawback must be overcome. The money issue can only be resolved if you go to church. Then the Lord will decide which door to enter for money.
  6. 0
    3 December 2024 12: 27
    Attach a barrel with buckshot and reload, and then the cost of destroying one UAV will drop hundreds of times.
  7. +2
    3 December 2024 21: 59
    If we take only barrel and TP systems for counteracting UAVs, then magazine smoothbore and associated shot organize a small radius of protection, but to increase the range, coupled with detection, a system similar to the Kolos complex could. But with counteracting UAVs, the primary task is to detect it at a long distance, when it is still moving towards the target, this is 5-8 km (this is FPV or Mavik) and only then hit it at 1,5 km, and if it slipped through, then a shotgun at 50-100 m
  8. 0
    4 December 2024 00: 51
    https://cont.ws/@t34/277599

    I suggest against small and medium drones (those drones that hunt infantry) use a flamethrower. There should be one flamethrower in the group. He can also use the flamethrower on the enemy. You can miss with a shotgun, but this thing will definitely cover. You can improve it and make a reinforced version so that it can reach up to two hundred meters.

    A sure bet. We have thousands of them in our warehouses.

    Pass this on to the decision makers.
  9. -1
    11 December 2024 19: 27
    I didn't expect to find such a low level of discussion on this site!
    1. 0
      11 December 2024 19: 37
      But it is known that a rocket is an aircraft using a jet method of movement, equipped with a rocket engine. Rocket, that is, using an oxidizer on board. And not from the air. And all jet engines (and aircraft equipped with them) using oxygen from the air, are not rocket (and missiles). And even more so, aircraft with non-jet propulsion are not rockets. A missile aircraft, a UAV, whatever you like, but not a rocket.
  10. -1
    27 March 2025 10: 47
    Write what progress has been made in 4 months. I would like to see what the comrades have managed to do. Many new devices have appeared recently, some of them are quite good.
    In principle, the design of the anti-drone is already clear and I'm surprised that it hasn't been made yet.

    Specifically about the hammer. This trench option is not needed. It is redundant. A drone that has flown up to a hundred meters is easier to destroy with a correspondingly modernized rifle. And for drones at a distance of five hundred meters or more, both the sight and the algorithm of use are inconvenient. Not only does the fighter expose his forehead to enemy bullets, he simply will not hit the target.
    .
    As I have already written, the drone in its current form should be simplified, made cheaper and used at distances of up to 500 meters under purely remote control.
    .
    Doesn't anyone see?!