Smart Anti-Drone Targeting: A Smart Solution or a Waste of Money

9 543 40
Smart Anti-Drone Targeting: A Smart Solution or a Waste of Money

The information field literally exploded at the end of spring the news about the SMASH 2000L (3000) sight. This is due to several news items about the purchase of these sights and, most importantly, a video from Lebanon where a lone IDF fighter shoots down a flying missile thanks to the SMASH sight. DroneLet's try to figure out what this miracle is and what all the fuss is about.

First of all, I would like to understand what the SMASH 2000L (3000) sight is?



SMASH 2000L (3000) is the latest iteration of sights that already have some historyThe history of the SMASH series of sights for the general public began in 2018. It was then announced that Israeli developer Smart Shooter Ltd. was working on a series of "smart" sights. Yes, SMASH is an entire line of sights, each with slightly different functionality, but all sharing common features. Essentially, it's a computerized ballistic computer, like that found on a large combat vehicle, only each soldier has one. weapons.


The manufacturer offers sights for a wide range of weapons.

All sights share common functionality: target tracking, a ballistic computer, and fire control (the sight blocks the trigger if the weapon isn't aimed at the target). Further variations follow. The sight can be night-vision, act as a "gun camera" to record hits, automatically detect targets based on movement, and so on. One option is the ability to engage small UAVs. While the sight wasn't originally designed specifically for these tasks, one model eventually acquired this functionality.

In 2019, a batch of sights was purchased by the US Army, and in 2020 they were delivered to units stationed in Syria for military testing (where, according to Hillary Clinton, they were never deployed, but that's a whole other story).


SMASH series sights for various weapon systems at the exhibition

And so, in 2020, the public got its first glimpse of how the SMASH series sights actually work against aerial targets. Photos from a US Army shooting range in Syria leaked to the press, where, among other things, SMASH sights were being tested mounted on M4 carbines. And what did the footage show? A small quadcopter drone (like the Mavic) lifted a cardboard target cube into the air, and the target was fired at this cube, which was either floating in the air or moving within the kill zone of the shooting range. That's all.

Perhaps this looked impressive in 2020. But it's important to understand that back then, swarms of drones weren't literally hovering over the battlefield, posing a deadly threat. Essentially, there were two types of drones on the battlefield: large, fixed-wing aircraft-type drones, which could be used for reconnaissance or attack, and small quadcopter drones, which, back in 2020, performed almost exclusively reconnaissance functions. In other words, the small drones didn't pose a direct threat, appeared less frequently over the battlefield, and more often simply hovered in the air. SMASH was designed to engage this type of target.


SMASH sights are produced in fairly large batches. This photo illustrated the news about the Indian Navy's purchase of a batch of sights.

What about now?

Almost all information about the sight comes from representatives of the developer, Smart Shooter Ltd., or from representatives of the Israel Defense Forces, which is also actively purchasing the sights. All other information is simply a rehash of what the first two have already said, or is pure speculation.

The manufacturer itself claims that drones can be fired at at ranges of up to 250 meters, including "very small" drones skimming at high speed. So, it seems the manufacturer isn't promising that you'll be able to shoot down FPV drones flying toward you... But when it comes to modern combat and small drones, they pose the primary threat to both individual combatants and aircraft. Yes, classic quadcopters, including those with drop capabilities, are still around, but they've faded into the background.


A photo from 2025 depicting US Marines practicing with M-series carbines equipped with SMASH sights. The targets are clearly visible as balls attached to a rope lifted into the air by a drone.

The IDF, as usual, defeated everyone and achieved success after success. It's been openly stated that SMASH helped achieve incredible results in the fight against drones in both Gaza and Lebanon. Judging by footage leaked by Hamas fighters through Egypt, quadcopters with airdrops were used in Gaza. We know for sure that Hezbollah is using drones in Lebanon. However, what kind of success is being discussed is unclear. Fighting is still ongoing in both Gaza and Lebanon. Hezbollah's frequency of drone use clearly pales in comparison to what's happening in the NWO zone. In Gaza, these are likely isolated incidents. To be honest, the footage of the drone downing in Lebanon barely shows the drone itself or the downing itself. Meanwhile, there are successful shots and the destruction of all enemy UAVs... And the footage is single and unclear.


A photo from a U.S. Army firing range in Germany in February 2026. A soldier with an M4 carbine equipped with a SMASH sight is clearly visible, with the cables leading to the weapon's trigger system.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, more footage emerged from the US Army, this time from Germany. US Army soldiers were again practicing firing at aerial targets using M4 carbines equipped with SMASH sights. What did we see this time? A quadcopter lifted several targets into the air on a rope attached to the ground, and the soldiers fired at these targets, swaying in the wind. For 2026, that looks pretty bleak.


And here are the targets at a shooting range in Germany. Again, the drone lifted a rope, the other end of which is attached to a weight on the ground and to the target's rope.

Meanwhile, news of someone purchasing a batch of SMASH series sights began pouring in. The Belgian military signed a contract, and the Australian Army will purchase sights worth half a million US dollars for testing. The British and German militaries took notice of the system as early as 2023.

Western militaries are understandable. At some point, they discovered that they weren't just lagging behind in the drone arms race, but simply lacked certain types of weapons and were completely incapable of countering them. This was, in part, hysterical. The Western press was full of headlines about how their militaries, for example, lacked fiber-optic drones and had no idea how to counter them. Under such circumstances, it was perfectly logical to turn their attention to a development that had long been in existence, and, what's more, had even been combat-tested.


SMASH sight in the British Army, this time the X4 model

On the other hand, it's clear that the SMASH sight isn't a panacea for small drones per se. In fact, it was designed to combat a single type of drone under very specific conditions. Any reports from the Israeli military can likely be divided by 10, while the Americans, who may have already used this sight against drones, are still silent about any actual combat successes. Based on the manufacturer's claims and footage from firing ranges and IDF reports, SMASH significantly increases a soldier's chances of hitting a small drone hovering or moving near them at ranges of up to 250 meters. However, it's unclear at what speed the sight can detect drones moving. It's more likely that it will be able to help shoot down an FPV that hasn't yet acquired its target, or, for example, when firing at a larger hexocopter drone (like the Baba Yaga).


It's unknown how many SMASH sights are in Israeli units in Lebanon, but it's clear they're either woefully insufficient or not as effective as the manufacturer claims. Still from a Hezbollah drone's FPV video. These Israeli soldiers either didn't have the smart sight, or it was useless against the "kamikaze drone."

But all these tasks are quite solvable with concentrated fire from a unit, even a small one—not even a squad, but a fire team. The extent to which a computerized sight can realistically solve such a problem remains an open question. There are plenty of images online of soldiers destroying hovering UAVs using weapons with traditional optics, and shooting down flying FPV drones with concentrated fire from conventional machine guns. Experience and perseverance are key here. But it's precisely this lack of experience that a ballistic computer sight can perhaps compensate for. Moreover, its advantages are obvious. There's no need to carry a specialized counter-drone secondary or even have a dedicated drone-destroyer in the unit. The sight is essentially universal, and if there are no drones overhead, it can help engage other targets.


The US Army clearly isn't relying on just one system to combat drones. Pictured is a soldier from the 1st Cavalry Division during a live-fire exercise in June 2026. He's carrying a classic, clearly well-worn pump-action shotgun.

The SMASH series of sights continues to be constantly improved. Many Western militaries are still only just considering them. Apparently, the performance-to-cost ratio isn't to everyone's liking. But perhaps the Israeli developers have predicted a future when every soldier on the battlefield, using specialized countermeasures, will periodically have to assume the role of drone-buster. At least for now, the trend is toward an ever-increasing number of drones over the battlefield, and literally everyone will have to fight them.
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    27 June 2026 05: 03
    What's needed is a simpler oculograph on the helmet, plus an oculograph in the sight, gyroscopes and accelerometers on the ends of the weapon to locate it in space, and the same in the helmet. And probably a Raspberry-level microcomputer to combine the vision data in the sight and visor. For true spatial alignment of the "person" and "their weapon."
    Probably then, for 100% accuracy, it would be easier to have a fixed frame and a moving weapon on servomotors so that it would aim according to the movement of the pupil.
    In short, the smartgun like the one from the movie "Aliens" that Vasquez carried around is made roughly like this. We have drones, so the smartgun fantasy will be realized sooner or later.
    1. 0
      27 June 2026 16: 06
      I think the OICW, which has a ballistic computer and five programmable 20mm airburst grenades, would work well against drones.
      1. 0
        27 June 2026 20: 02
        Ballistics and statistics are against it, considering the OICW and its ammunition. Plus, it's expensive to shoot at essentially nothing.
        1. -1
          27 June 2026 20: 13
          Quote: Skobaristan
          Ballistics and statistics are against it when considering the oicw and its ammunition.

          How did they spot it? Was someone shooting at the drones?
          Quote: Skobaristan
          And it’s also expensive to shoot into nothing, essentially.

          It's expensive to raise a new fighter. We seem to have calculated that it costs 5-30 million rubles to raise a new person.
          1. -1
            27 June 2026 20: 39
            So, it's basic calculations. The system has a laser rangefinder. This means that to input data into the grenade, the distance to the target must be measured. In our case, it's a moving object. This immediately presents the first problems: early detection, locking onto the target, and targeting a small drone (and the loaded system weighs 6,8 kg, making this a non-trivial task). Okay, we've locked onto the target, the laser gives the range, and fired. The range is 200 meters, the grenade's initial velocity is 180 m/s, meaning the grenade's flight time is approximately one second. Even with a drone's minimum FPV speed of 60 km/h, if it's heading toward a fighter, the drone will fly about 17 meters. This means the grenade explodes behind the drone. The fragmentation field of a 20mm grenade, guaranteed to destroy a drone, is definitely not 17 meters. I can estimate, but it's pointless. The grenade was promised to cost $25. A fighter would hardly have time to fire five grenades. But yes, the complex itself was supposed to cost 10000. That's the conclusion: expensive and pointless. But I liked the part about the cost of living.
            1. 0
              16 July 2026 21: 36
              Even if the drone's FPV speed is a minimum of 60 km/h, it will fly approximately 17 meters if it's aiming at the fighter. This means the grenade explodes behind the drone.

              The principle of operation of the ballistic computer is based on the fact that it takes into account the speed of the target and detonates the grenade at a calculated distance, i.e. not where the target was at the moment of the shot, but where it will be when the grenade reaches the target.
              1. 0
                17 July 2026 09: 36
                To do this, you need to "track" the target for a certain period of time. The OICW was designed to measure the distance to a stationary target. And the grenade's airburst was needed to cover a trench from above, as far as I remember. That's one... two, that same target tracking problem: for the computer to calculate the detonation moment, you need to maintain a heavy system while tracking the target. And three, the slightest change in the target's trajectory negates all the work of the computer. The lethal radius of a 20mm grenade, as I said, is minimal. So yes, a "ballistic computer" sounds impressive. But when considering the problem in a specific situation, it doesn't work.
                1. 0
                  17 July 2026 10: 44
                  To determine a target's velocity, it's enough to track it for a few seconds. Then you can calculate its coordinates. Changing the trajectory doesn't happen instantly; old Newton forbids it. Trajectory calculations can be done quite accurately in 1-2 seconds. I worked on this issue back in Soviet times, working at the Aviation Institute, and even received an honorary doctorate for an invention, so I'm on the topic.
                  1. 0
                    17 July 2026 11: 10
                    Then you should know. It's desirable to have the interceptor's speed as high as possible. I've given the speed for a 20mm grenade. So, back to the basics: in theory, anything is possible, but in practice, the proposed solution is not viable.
                  2. 0
                    17 July 2026 11: 44
                    And we can go further. Look at the laser beam width at the same 200 meters. Then estimate the hand deflection of a shooter who needs to keep the target on target for even two seconds. Figuring out how to do this while holding 6 kg is even more challenging. The maximum time this could work is at a firing range, with a fresh, strong, and calm soldier, and the target heading straight for him. That means the angular velocity is practically zero. And even then, it's not a 100% guarantee. Because there's recoil when firing. A grenade deflects, and the drone is no longer within the guaranteed kill radius. I can even do the math again. Want to know?
                    1. 0
                      17 July 2026 16: 20
                      No, I don't want to, I understand everything. Systems like these use semi-automatic lasers, which have a wide beam pattern. There will be recoil, but the grenade will hit the target because the guidance system blocks the shot until it's precisely aimed, and a second shot isn't necessary. Whether the target is coming straight or at an angle doesn't matter; the ballistic computer will make the necessary adjustments.
                      1. 0
                        17 July 2026 16: 47
                        You're wrong to dislike numbers. A ballistic calculator will only calculate the results, but the barrel of a weapon like the OICW is determined by the shooter's muscle power. And you won't be able to account for that error at all. I haven't even remembered that ammunition has a natural dispersion. There's also wind and temperature... Are you sure you worked at an institute? Because it's strange to me that you're throwing out factors and drawing conclusions without even basic calculations.
                      2. 0
                        17 July 2026 21: 21
                        I can do calculations in vector form, not the primitives you use. And by the way, I have a PhD in engineering. I don't see the point in arguing with you; your understanding of this matter is very superficial.
                      3. 0
                        17 July 2026 21: 24
                        You know. Your last remark sounds like someone who wants to appear to be something they're not. It happens. The funniest thing is, based on my numbers, all you could come up with was: "I know everything's wrong." Am I supposed to believe it? No, that's not how it works. It seems you have no connection to technology at all.
                      4. 0
                        17 July 2026 21: 29
                        I responded to you with three well-reasoned posts, saying that I don’t care what you think about me.
                      5. -1
                        17 July 2026 21: 54
                        You haven't presented any arguments. Your arguments are like: I'm a candidate for technical science, I developed it. That's the level of a correspondence boxer. This is reality. It happens, I understand. I was expecting numbers, but all I got was a puffed-up face. Oh well, it happens.
                      6. -1
                        17 July 2026 22: 13
                        You know what's the saddest thing? If our system gave you a KTN, that's a real tragedy. Because a real KTN should operate with numbers and calculations. And this: I worked on this issue back in Soviet times, working at the Aviation Institute, and even received an A.S. for an invention, so I'm in the know. (c) I can do calculations in vector form. (c) This is truly a disgrace.
                      7. 0
                        18 July 2026 18: 41
                        I don't have to explain basic things to you, much less engage in complex calculations. The calculations you cited are at the level of school arithmetic. They explain nothing. Are you a schoolchild or a student? Let the teachers explain basic physics and mathematics to you. I don't have the time to educate you.
                      8. 0
                        18 July 2026 19: 10
                        I don't have the time to educate you. (C) That's why you came to tell me how brilliant you are? Let's put aside the calculations and everything else. Are you so sad in life that you came here to boast about your past and tell me without any evidence how you did your calculations? There's no other explanation. Because a true scientist or engineer doesn't display snobbery, but calmly shows with numbers where things go wrong in "school arithmetic." You're just using generalities. Nothing more, essentially empty and unfounded: I'm a prince. That's all.
                      9. 0
                        19 July 2026 08: 26
                        Remember, young man, no one owes you anything. The only ones who will be obligated to you are your children, whom you may someday raise and educate.
                      10. 0
                        19 July 2026 10: 26
                        You're repeating yourself. So you just wanted attention. Well, why didn't you teach him a lesson?
    2. 0
      27 June 2026 18: 44
      Quote: Last centurion
      For true alignment of the object "man" and the object "his weapon" in space.

      I also think that without a tight connection between electronics and the brain, the idea of ​​a handheld weapon with a ballistic computer is a priori dead. A human has too many degrees of freedom for a ballistic computer to take them into account. Everything will be reduced to shooting from a rigid support, like those tripods shown in commercials. The human's role will be limited to detecting the target and aligning the aiming line with its intended course. In other words, the human will be acting in place of the turret's servos. As a handheld shooting solution, the idea is stillborn.
  2. Eug
    +8
    27 June 2026 06: 10
    The term "concentrated fire" made me smile. It was once called "focused."
    1. 0
      27 June 2026 14: 33
      Costs of computer translation.
  3. + 15
    27 June 2026 07: 07
    I thought the author was KiriLL Ryabov, no! Although the style and direction are completely consistent. Diligently discrediting any "their" innovation – that's our everything!
    I suspect this is a very promising new direction. We wouldn't have the same problem we had with drones...
    1. +4
      27 June 2026 12: 36
      I had a suspicion that it was Roman Skomorokhov)))
  4. 0
    27 June 2026 07: 51
    Naturally, they won't be shooting at the drone itself at the range, but at the balloons hanging from it. A drone costs money. And loaded with balloons, it won't be able to maneuver very well, if only because the airflow will throw the rope into the propellers, and that's the end of the drone.
  5. + 10
    27 June 2026 09: 14
    A new generation of sights. No need to take a lead or consider the target's range—the sight will calculate it for you and give you a sight mark, which you then align with the target. The Americans have adopted a similar sight—the XM157 from Sheltered Wings. The new sights are like switching from a slide rule to a calculator. There may be some problems with the former, but it's certainly a promising direction.
    1. 0
      27 June 2026 11: 51
      The weight of this entire wonder shouldn't be overlooked. The Americans already abandoned the XM7 (a year later) due to its heavy overall weight (5+ kg).
      1. +1
        27 June 2026 12: 36
        The weight is 740g, which is quite acceptable, especially considering that it is mainly installed on the arches, which themselves weigh about 2kg.
        1. -2
          27 June 2026 12: 42
          yeah, 2 kg laughing
          with body kits and gadgets (+ silencer) and a magazine with at least 4 rounds.
          1. +1
            27 June 2026 16: 03
            With attachments and a 3,5-3,7mm magazine, it's on average 1kg lighter than the Kalashnikov. It's not a huge difference, especially if it saves lives.
  6. +1
    27 June 2026 12: 34
    There are a lot of assumptions and arguments along the lines of "if it's not ours, it's bad." On average, there's one sight per platoon, and their number is increasing. During the Gaza invasion, there were seven drones in 30 seconds with this sight, but it's unclear whether there was just one sight or several. The sight isn't an absolute panacea, but it significantly increases the chances of shooting down a drone for a soldier or unit.
    1. 0
      27 June 2026 17: 10
      It also reduces the requirements for individual fighter training.
  7. +6
    27 June 2026 16: 07
    It's better to have a smart sight than not, better to have a thermal imager than not. It seems like our poverty and technological backwardness are being passed off as a blessing.
  8. -1
    27 June 2026 21: 08
    This is nonsense... just not against drones....
  9. -1
    28 June 2026 00: 01
    Quote from alexoff
    It's expensive to raise a new fighter. We seem to have calculated that it costs 5-30 million rubles to raise a new person.
    And 20+ years of time. A spoon is dear to the heart... However, if nuclear weapons aren't used, the "meat" will arrive just in time for the middle of the war.
  10. +1
    28 June 2026 13: 07
    The XM-157 is a variable magnification optic from x1 to x8 with a built-in first focal plane display and a laser rangefinder unit that allows you to calculate the range to a target at the touch of a button, calculate ballistics based on the range and environmental conditions, and then display the bullet's impact point on the reticle - all in a fraction of a second.
    Another feature of the XM-157 is the ability to highlight and store up to 10 targets. Yes, just like in a computer shooter, you can highlight enemies, and the sight, thanks to the spatial positioning system, will remember the target's location if you highlight it first.
    Another feature of the sighting system is its software, which has pre-installed settings "out of the box" for other types of US Army small arms, taking into account all the data on the barrel length and ballistics of the cartridge used (according to the project manager, there are even settings for the M2 Browning).
    1. +1
      29 June 2026 23: 31
      An oculograph tracks human eye movement!!! It's like someone staring at the sky, while the scope tracks their pupil and aims the weapon. What kind of fighter pilot would you have to be to invent something like this? Simple algorithms can process the signal from a camera facing the sky and, against the sky, highlight an anomaly—a crow, a drone, or whatever. And you don't need a human here. If your rifle mount is bolted to the roof of a house, a fence, or a tree, you don't need to use gyroscopes to find the horizon; a bubble level, like in a level, will suffice, and the accuracy will be an order of magnitude higher.
      By the way, to hit a moving target with single shots, in addition to machine vision and automatic aiming without human intervention, the shot must be fired at a precisely calculated moment in time, so electric ignition of the gunpowder in the cartridges will be required,
      1. 0
        30 June 2026 14: 00
        I dug up a manual from the archives from 43—on rifle shooting at enemy aircraft. A funny book. The author is brilliant. Tables, lead calculations, aircraft silhouettes—everything is mathematically sound and meticulously verified. Most importantly, it included a training course, a dozen blank-firing exercises, and even the use of a small-bore rifle! I figured it would take at least a month of diligent training for a soldier to acquire any skill. But how did it relate to real combat? That's right, it didn't.