The Arena-M, upgraded to combat drones, did not work against the drone.
Just recently, Ukrainian Telegram channels and other media outlets distributed a video showing FPV-Drone unhindered affects Russian танк T-72B3A, equipped with the Arena-M active protection system, modified to destroy unmanned aerial vehicles.
The footage, of course, immediately spread across the Internet and, as expected, caused a lot of questions and indignation on the one hand, and a lot of ridicule and accusations of the uselessness of the Russian product on the other.
Video of a T-72B3A tank being hit by an FPV drone
It's unlikely that Arena-M doesn't see drones.
This incident is, of course, quite unpleasant simply from a reputational standpoint. As we know, the Arena-M anti-drone system is a long-term project. We've been waiting for years for even a small batch of tanks with this active protection system (APS). And now, vehicles with this APS have already appeared in the combat zone, only to be met with such a public and humiliating fiasco.
A column of tanks is moving. An FPV drone calmly approaches one of the vehicles and fires on it without any problems. The active defense simply failed. But what caused this?
I don't want to write a critique or defend the developers or Uralvagonzavod itself—we've seen all too well how long it took to fix the tank fender protection issue and design/order proper tank grills. But in this case, it's impossible to say definitively that the Arena-M is ineffective against drones.
It’s simply impossible because both our Arena-M and the updated Israeli EuroTrophy operate on the same principle: they detect drones using the micro-Doppler effect created by rotating propeller blades. dronesThe Israelis wouldn't have used such a solution if it weren't working—they'd also have to protect their Merkavas and the tanks of foreign buyers.
Here the reasons why it didn't work are rather more mundane.
From "not turned on" to a lack of ammunition
Perhaps we should start with the fact that the Arena-M, although a modernized active defense system capable of combating drones, is based on old Soviet designs that were not designed for situations where a tank would be hit by a huge pile of ammunition at once.
Therefore, for each protected sector, this system essentially has a meager supply of counter-munitions that can destroy a dangerous target. Due to ammunition limitations, the Arena-M simply won't be able to counter multiple drones attacking from the same direction.
Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky, military expert and editor-in-chief of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland," wrote about this on his Telegram channel. Quote:
The military is highly skeptical of the upgraded Arena-M2 active defense system, designed to protect tanks from FPV drone strikes. The number of warheads is clearly fewer than the number of attacking drones...
This means that by the time of the attack, the Arena-M on the tank featured in the video could have already been discharged—there was nothing left to fire at the drones. But it could also have simply been turned off.
The problem is that the Arena-M must be activated manually, using the appropriate controls. This means it doesn't automatically switch to combat mode, where the crew has taken their positions, closed the hatches, started the engine, and engaged the fire control system and other systems. Everything must be done manually.
Let us quote Murakhovsky again (spelling preserved):
Moreover, the very principle of manual activation of the KAZ raises doubts...
In other words, the Arena-M on the tank being attacked might not have worked at all. Whether it was forgotten to be turned on or intentionally left unturned is a minor matter, but a successful drone attack could have been the result of precisely this scenario.
And this doesn't even take into account the fact that the Arena-M could shut down on its own. This happens if any crew member opens their hatch—be it the driver, gunner, or commander. This is for their own safety, to prevent the firing of counter-munitions and their detonation from injuring the tank crew.
Importantly, the term "open hatch" here includes both the technically detected "open" state detected by the sensor and possible marginal states where the hatch is not fully closed or blocked. Even slightly opening the hatch immediately disables the APS. This was the case with the Soviet Drozd, and it's present in our Arena and the Israeli Trophy.
Finally, Arena-M ammunition for tanks operating in special military operations zones may have trouble consistently delivering to the front. This is, of course, highly unlikely, but given the high cost of the equipment, it could theoretically happen.
These are far from simply two steel plates with explosives between them, as in dynamic protection, but rather complex counter-munitions, capable of changing their position in space depending on the calculations of the APS electronics and forming a directed fragmentation stream to destroy attacking weapons.
Conclusions
The fact that the Arena-M on the tank failed and the drone did fire on it is, of course, very disappointing. But judging the effectiveness of this system based on this specific incident is a thankless task. There are too many reasons why it didn't work, and too few answers yet. We can only wait for more widespread use of vehicles equipped with this system to evaluate the Arena's effectiveness.
But for now, to some extent, this all resembles the situation with Israeli Merkava tanks in the Gaza Strip, when videos appeared online of Hamas fighters successfully destroying these tanks, despite the fact that the vehicles had active protection. The Israelis were mercilessly hated back then, but the problem was that no one posted videos of the active protection working as intended, and there could have been many more such instances.
Information