GarryB wrote:This is interesting and should be cheap and quick to implement, but a longer term solution that is rather better is needed.
A 12.7mm HMG is powerful and longer ranged, but is it better able to hit small elusive targets and would it be cheaper than a PKM?
Most drones will be vulnerable to rifle calibre machine gun fire and HMG rounds extend effective range but are they accurate enough at that extra range?
If they are not accurate at that extra range then that extra range is meaningless.
apparently not, in the second WW 12,7mm sere used as aa weapons till the very end unlike 7,92/7,62
To replace that light truck with the 23mm cannon I would say that BTR with the twin single 23mm cannon with the airburst shells would be better.
It's certainly more expensive in procurement and maintenance, but in which characteristic is it better? open platforms ensure much operational better awareness
These vehicles are good for a start... cheap and probably ready to go now because they probably already have them, but the problem with such vehicles is that riding through a friendly village, the enemy could send in some cheap drones to fly low and you start painting the local village with 12.7mm HMG rounds and 23mm cannon shells and even if you hit the drones you are going to tear up that village.
drones flying low are not met so far on the battlefield, guess signal to control is too weak
Cheap is a solution and in many cases it is good enough, but better solutions are shells that explode near the target so even the rounds that don't directly hit the target can do damage and help to bring the target down
.
23mm/30mm explosive rounds are planned to be delivered on the battlefield this year later on.
I rather suspect the ultimate solution will be a truck in the middle of the convoy or unit being protected stacked with thousands of drones with chargers with a couple of drones flying with the convoy and landing on the truck to recharge when the batteries get low to be replaced on patrol by the next drones so the convoy is constantly monitored and covered by these drones and when enemy drones are detected suicide drones are launched to directly attack the incoming enemy drone... all controlled by AI so the convoy can get on and do what it needs while a swarm of bees hover over head protecting them from enemy wasps.
let's see if it works
Using a 2S35 Coalition means lots of ready to fire ammo and fully automatic auto ammo feed system with a gun with high elevation and full 360 degree traverse... and a loading vehicle already designed too.
like one shot to one fpv drone? without agility unlikely to hit the area and then you send 2 drones one is hit by expensive round then next used time to reload and hit the target?
Against infantry however it would be devastating... especially if it could be fired into a group of enemy troops and exploded amongst them.
programmable canister shots ?
Paradoxically, an old solution like Tunguska or Pantsir seems to be the best ATM. – guns with airburst ammunition and missile combos – and in the foreseeable future, in my humble opinion.
mnztr wrote:To deal with drone warms, can't they just mount 5 layers of claymore mines on the bottom of a drone, and then drop them so they explode at a min safe distance from the drone, showring everything below with hot metal pieces? You can also have metal projctiles tethered with steel wire so they are dangerous to drones even when they slow down
how would you like to chase agile and fast fpv drones? say 30m/s or higher? heavy drones are neither agile nor that fast.
Looks like microwave or laser guns might be a good solution this purpose.
mnztr wrote:To deal with drone warms, can't they just mount 5 layers of claymore mines on the bottom of a drone, and then drop them so they explode at a min safe distance from the drone, showring everything below with hot metal pieces? You can also have metal projctiles tethered with steel wire so they are dangerous to drones even when they slow down
how would you like to chase agile and fast fpv drones? say 30m/s or higher? heavy drones are neither agile nor that fast.
Looks like microwave or laser guns might be a good solution this purpose.
My suggestionn was for drone swarms. Not individual highly agile drones.
apparently not, in the second WW 12,7mm sere used as aa weapons till the very end unlike 7,92/7,62
That was mainly because they were used against manned aircraft that often carried light armour to stop rifle calibre rounds so the heavier rounds were necessary.
Manned aircraft are rather larger than most drones need to be so they can be seen and engaged at much greater distances.
If you are talking about hand launched drones that are hard to see at more than 800m away then it is pretty hard to justify using 23mm cannon or 12.7mm HMG rounds because their ability to penetrate armour becomes meaningless if they don't actually make contact with the target to set off their explosive payloads.
It's certainly more expensive in procurement and maintenance, but in which characteristic is it better? open platforms ensure much operational better awareness
Some sort of 360 degree hemispherical sensor operating in IIR and optical wavelengths perhaps using LIDAR technology to automatically detect small flying targets and direct an optical sensor in their direction is more useful than an open bed truck hoping the crew on the gun manage to spot a small elusive target that might be a kilometre away.
drones flying low are not met so far on the battlefield, guess signal to control is too weak
Have you not been watching Russian videos of drone attacks on Ukrainian targets... an optical drone flying at altitude spots the target and monitors the attack while a low flying Lancet approaches the target at very low altitude, normally popping up for the final dive on the target from an unexpected direction.
23mm/30mm explosive rounds are planned to be delivered on the battlefield this year later on.
That will make a difference... being able to fire single shots at a target will minimise collateral damage and the computation power of your average cellphone means a laser range finder and a palmtop computer you could be firing single rounds at most targets with a rather good chance of hits to bring down drones of all sizes.
A heavier drone might require three or four shots to cover it in fragments, but you wont be needing to fire off entire belts of ammo at targets to bring them down.
let's see if it works
Fight fire with fire. Wasps have been defending their nests this way for a very long time and they are generally successful.
No solution is going to be 100% effective all the time.
Just like no level of body armour will make you safe... gaps in the armour and simply more powerful ammunition being fired in your direction means this is true.
like one shot to one fpv drone? without agility unlikely to hit the area and then you send 2 drones one is hit by expensive round then next used time to reload and hit the target?
No. The Coalition wont be driving down the road with the convoy it is protecting swinging its gun round like a Shilka trying to shoot drones.... that would be ridiculous... you would use 23mm cannon or 30mm cannon or 57mm cannon with airburst shells for that, or even lasers.
The idea of the Coalition is that it fires a rather large shell that can fill a grid square with shrapnel so monitoring the front line you detect drones approaching your front line via airborne EO or LIDAR based system, nearby Coalition batteries can load up airburst shells and in dead ground between your troops and their troops that the enemy drones have to cross you fire a volley of airburst shells to cover a 400 square metre area of the battlefield with so many fragments any drones that were there are shredded.
For larger drones flying at higher altitude with cameras finding targets to attack you can fire a couple of rounds in it flight path with the same goal to burst midair where the drone is flying towards... most of the time they orbit areas or fly straight and level looking for targets so it wont matter how long the round takes to get there...
Jammers and other systems also need to be used together to make things difficult for the enemy... some 152mm artillery shells that home in on the TV video stream feed from the recon drone to take out the drone could be fired at the same time another 152mm shell designed to home in on the command control that is directing the drone...
Paradoxically, an old solution like Tunguska or Pantsir seems to be the best ATM. – guns with airburst ammunition and missile combos – and in the foreseeable future, in my humble opinion.
Ironically the old Pantsir was probably better suited with two single barrel 2A72 30mm cannon that could easily fire single shots or very short bursts.
The 2A38M cannon of the Tunguska and later model Pantsir is intended to fire at a very high rate of fire to hit much larger targets multiple times. It is also intended to create a shower of rounds around the point of aim so that if the target speeds up or slows down or climbs or dives or turns it will still get hit by shells.
My suggestionn was for drone swarms. Not individual highly agile drones.
The best way to deal with a drone swarm might simply be a 152mm shell with an EMP warhead set off in the midst of the swarm...
Of course the enormous variety of different drone types with different control methods and other features I rather suspect the more options to deal with them the better.
apparently not, in the second WW 12,7mm sere used as aa weapons till the very end unlike 7,92/7,62
That was mainly because they were used against manned aircraft that often carried light armour to stop rifle calibre rounds so the heavier rounds were necessary.
Manned aircraft are rather larger than most drones need to be so they can be seen and engaged at much greater distances.
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/UJ-22_Airborne
not necessarily much smaller
If you are talking about hand launched drones that are hard to see at more than 800m away then it is pretty hard to justify using 23mm cannon or 12.7mm HMG rounds because their ability to penetrate armour becomes meaningless if they don't actually make contact with the target to set off their explosive payloads.
23mm with airburst ammo is very good choice imgo. We don't know stats what percentage of drone is small or medium size isn't it? Russians even use Pantsirs to take them them down. Not sure what's your chance to hit fpv diving on you with mg at all.
BTW Valkyrie (ukro recon drone ) 1,6m wingspan, flying on 2000m you'd engage with 7,62mm?
It's certainly more expensive in procurement and maintenance, but in which characteristic is it better? open platforms ensure much operational better awareness
Some sort of 360 degree hemispherical sensor operating in IIR and optical wavelengths perhaps using LIDAR technology to automatically detect small flying targets and direct an optical sensor in their direction is more useful than an open bed truck hoping the crew on the gun manage to spot a small elusive target that might be a kilometre away.
So you are talking about future and sophisticated solutions? then why to install it on ancient BTR not on something new? Any cheap modern platform shall be good enough
drones flying low are not met so far on the battlefield, guess signal to control is too weak
Have you not been watching Russian videos of drone attacks on Ukrainian targets... an optical drone flying at altitude spots the target and monitors the attack while a low flying Lancet approaches the target at very low altitude, normally popping up for the final dive on the target from an unexpected direction.
I have and it appears that the Lancets consistently dive in the final phase only. i have never seen Lancets flying flat and low in residential areas.
23mm/30mm explosive rounds are planned to be delivered on the battlefield this year later on.
That will make a difference... being able to fire single shots at a target will minimise collateral damage and the computation power of your average cellphone means a laser range finder and a palmtop computer you could be firing single rounds at most targets with a rather good chance of hits to bring down drones of all sizes.
A heavier drone might require three or four shots to cover it in fragments, but you wont be needing to fire off entire belts of ammo at targets to bring them down.
guess that's the idea behind it, Russian ammo burts time is to be laser controlled form gun... apparently testing was postive
The idea of the Coalition is that it fires a rather large shell that can fill a grid square with shrapnel so monitoring the front line you detect drones approaching your front line via airborne EO or LIDAR based system, nearby Coalition batteries can load up airburst shells and in dead ground between your troops and their troops that the enemy drones have to cross you fire a volley of airburst shells to cover a 400 square metre area of the battlefield with so many fragments any drones that were there are shredded.
Your assessment aligns well with the described scenario.However, it's too complex for practical implementation. Consider the scenario: troops advancing, drones appear suddenly. Would you start shooting? not to mention how much is one round worth? 10? 50 drones?
Paradoxically, an old solution like Tunguska or Pantsir seems to be the best ATM. – guns with airburst ammunition and missile combos – and in the foreseeable future, in my humble opinion.
Ironically the old Pantsir was probably better suited with two single barrel 2A72 30mm cannon that could easily fire single shots or very short bursts.
The 2A38M cannon of the Tunguska and later model Pantsir is intended to fire at a very high rate of fire to hit much larger targets multiple times. It is also intended to create a shower of rounds around the point of aim so that if the target speeds up or slows down or climbs or dives or turns it will still get hit by shells.
In this scenario, a higher rate of fire could prove to be more advantageous. A one-second burst would dispatch approximately 65 rounds, effectively covering a larger area surrounding the incoming drones. Considering the typical altitudes and speeds at which drones operate, the range of a 30mm caliber is indeed valuable.
Such drones would be engaged by current air defence forces... which largely don't exist in western formations, but in Russian formations are rather good at their job most of the time.
It is the tiny drones including FPVs and suicide drones that are the problem.
Not sure what's your chance to hit fpv diving on you with mg at all.
Those tricky buggers that are tiny and fly between bushes and trees and wont be seen till they pop up for a dive 30m from the target will likely only be "shot down" by APS systems or men with shotguns sitting on top of the vehicles... or jammers/dazzlers.
Ideally you will spot such targets with airborne platforms using optical and radar and lidar sensors so each convoy or potential target along its flight path can be given warning of its approach... its low altitude means it wont be seen till it is very close or when it needs to cross large areas of open flat ground... this means shotguns at short range will be more effective than machine guns. Shot or cannister rounds from larger calibre weapons like grenade launchers would be interesting options too.
The problem is complex and some systems already in use can be adapted to fill that gap, but new systems also need to be developed including a swarm of drones that kill enemy drones.
BTW Valkyrie (ukro recon drone ) 1,6m wingspan, flying on 2000m you'd engage with 7,62mm?
If it is going to fly at such an altitude it should be straight forward to detect and engage with standard and conventional air defence systems like Verba and Pantsir mini missiles.
The new missiles they are working on with ARH and 3kg warheads would also easily deal with such a problem.
So you are talking about future and sophisticated solutions? then why to install it on ancient BTR not on something new? Any cheap modern platform shall be good enough
Because BTRs are cheap and are in service... you need something that can be deployed almost anywhere to support support convoys of mostly trucks and support vehicles so a BTR is ideal really. Newer vehicles like the Typhoon and Boomerang range of platforms will have better armour but wont be easy to put into serial production like a BTR-80 or BTR-82 vehicle could. I would say Tigr platforms would also be good too in terms of mobility and cost.
I would think an anti drone vehicle would be incorporated into all Russian armoured vehicle families anyway, but Terminators might be adapted to the role too.
Perhaps most vehicles will be getting anti drone systems from cages to jammers and modified APS systems that can deal with drones as well, but separate convoy protection vehicles with lasers and jammers and specialist drone or missile detection equipment and guns are needed along with dedicated armoured vehicles like Terminator that be upgraded to deal with drones too... with air burst cannon shells and LIDAR and a datalink to nearby airborne sensors looking for small targets...
There will also be defensive drones.
Of course sometimes an Su-25 will come across a drone....
I have and it appears that the Lancets consistently dive in the final phase only. i have never seen Lancets flying flat and low in residential areas.
The enormous size of their huge white wings would make them an obvious target for enemy ground forces... it would have to fly low to get to the target.
Flying high makes sense if you are trying to find targets to attack but to avoid being shot down it makes more sense to fly very low and very fast... or be very small and not noticed.
guess that's the idea behind it, Russian ammo burts time is to be laser controlled form gun... apparently testing was postive
Air defence is maths... the amount of time it takes for your shells to reach a point of interception gives you a flight time period for the target. If you know the targets aerodynamic performance then you can calculate how big the interception box is. Its ability to speed up or slow down, to climb or descend, its ability to turn left or right and accelerate or slow down. If I make it simple and make it a 100m engagement with a rifle and a human being on flat open ground between the time you fire and the time the bullet would intercept the target is an amount of time... say 0.08 seconds. The distance the target can move in 0.08 seconds would form a box of x by x size if they know they have just been fired upon and are trying to dodge the bullet. If the bullet explodes at 98m and showers the target box with fragments then you might only need to fire one shot to assure a kill because no matter what the target does they can't move their vulnerable bits out of your interception box.
With Tunguska the box gets filled with 30mm cannon shells so it does not matter how hard the target aircraft manouvers some of those cannon shells will hit and do damage and a damaged aircraft will have reduced ability to evade the next burst of shells and will therefore likely be hit with more 30mm shells the next burst assuming it survives the first.
Tunguska is being replaced by 2S38 because even at an enormous rate of fire at 3km range the gaps between the 30mm shells is still too big and could let cruise missiles fly through without a single hit. In comparison a burst of 57mm shells that explode and send tens of thousands of fragments around the point of aim each means that interception box gets filled again and the target can't escape.
Air burst 30mm shells is a serious improvement against small targets but against big targets like an Apache the fragments might not be heavy enough to do serious damage so you use normal HE rounds because they were already getting the job done.
Your assessment aligns well with the described scenario.However, it's too complex for practical implementation. Consider the scenario: troops advancing, drones appear suddenly. Would you start shooting? not to mention how much is one round worth? 10? 50 drones?
I would say they are not stupid and any infantry advance would be covered by a few coalition frag rounds in the fields in front of them to make enemy troops put their heads down and for enemy drones to be thinned... but I would also suggest a Russian advance would also incorporate its own drones and its own artillery to clear the way first.
Sending your own drones often reveals enemy positions so being able to launch 152mm shells from 30km away or more to explode in the path of enemy drones... well the enemy wont know where your positions are because of your muzzle flashes...
In this scenario, a higher rate of fire could prove to be more advantageous. A one-second burst would dispatch approximately 65 rounds, effectively covering a larger area surrounding the incoming drones. Considering the typical altitudes and speeds at which drones operate, the range of a 30mm caliber is indeed valuable.
30mm rounds are certainly part of the solution, and if the 23mm air burst rounds can be a little cheaper and the gun being lighter and with less recoil then they should all be used where sensible. The 30mm rounds will definitely have better reach and punch.
The Terminator has two dual feed 30mm cannon. Its primary mission is enemy position suppression for which HEI-T is probably a favourite round. With two guns each with two belt feeds one feed for each gun can be HEI-T rounds so both guns can fire at once at a ground position and blow the sht out of it. That leaves one feed for each gun so it makes sense for one feed for one gun to be API-T or APDS-T or APFSDS for anti armour use if you come across a hard target, and the remaining barrel can have HE air burst shells... it can fire in its high fire rate about 8-10 rounds per second, which would be plenty most of the time... in fact firing 10 rounds would probably be wasteful. With a good ballistics computer and air burst mechanism that sets the rounds off at a good distance you probably only would need 2-4 shells per target for most targets. A target pulling high gs trying to evade would be trickier but would not be completely safe either.
All of the above (including the shotgun) is good as a last ditch defense against kamikaze type drones, but you do need long range means of countering recce drones. These drones do come in different guises from tiny FP types to very large high altitude types. Even supersonic/hypersonic ones. These recce drones are the most dangerous ones as they can spot you miles away without even been noticed.
You need to eliminate them well before they can cause major damage. ECM is probably the best and ultimate way to neutralize these pesky machines, but as they say there are many ways to skin a cat - as long as you are able to spot it first.
sepheronx, GarryB, The-thing-next-door and lyle6 like this post
Imo the key is not as much in the gun but very good optics, tracking software and slewing to target with electric drives as fast as possible. I mean I am talking a full rotation in under a second. In the modern battlefield I am thinking you would need to get thr speed down from first initial track to firing the gun/cannon in under two or three seconds.
All of the above (including the shotgun) is good as a last ditch defense against kamikaze type drones, but you do need long range means of countering recce drones. These drones do come in different guises from tiny FP types to very large high altitude types. Even supersonic/hypersonic ones. These recce drones are the most dangerous ones as they can spot you miles away without even been noticed.
Very much agree... it is the drones with cameras that find targets and monitor attacks so the attack drones don't need to fly high looking for targets they can fly directly towards their target and using the view from the recon drone it can see which way the target is facing and attack it from an unexpected direction... and you can launch several attack drones while the attacks are monitored by the recon drone and once a target is destroyed they can attack the next target.
Taking out the recon drone would be top priority.
I would say a laser based weapon system with a lidar sensor and optics with thermals and an IRST system that detects warm spots in the air (ie not an imaging system that has to scan the entire sky). The IRST will rapidly find things in the air and then you can use an imaging IR or IIR system to look at it and identify it and a laser to engage or perhaps a cannon with an airburst shell to take it down.
Ideally you want your own recon drones airborne that can spot enemy recon drones and also enemy FPV and suicide drones to warn friendlies in the area of their presence. Being aware of a threat (as opposed to just generally jumpy) can make things rather better.
At one time there were combination weapons that were being developed... perhaps the integration of a grenade launcher together with a 9mm SMG could be something that is useful where the grenade launcher might be loaded with super shotgun like rounds, while the SMG portion can be used in trench warfare at close range.
There was a weapon shown that used a big 20 round drum magazine for a 30mm grenade launcher, it was called Arbelet or something. Perhaps making it a bullpup grenade launcher with an underbarrel new model SMG in 9mm.
Or perhaps that compact 5.45x39mm MA weapon could be attached underneath a grenade launcher type weapon... the MA is only 2.5kgs.
This is the page for the 30mm Arbalet and as you can see it is a substantial weapon likely with heavy recoil.
I would say a modified version of it in bullpup layout with an over the shoulder design perhaps with the 10 round magazine behind the shoulder and the MA under the front portion of the weapon...
Or perhaps a long barrel bullpup 12 gauge with an MA underbarrel rifle?
The grenade launcher could act as a range weapon as well as an anti drone weapon over shorter ranges with a SMG... perhaps a Klin or the full auto model of the Boa constrictor pistol attached to it.
The US is looking at an 18.5mm grenade launcher based on the 12 gauge round and I believe the Russians are looking into that too... maybe a 23mm calibre shotgun model based on the KS-23 with a SMG lower would be interesting.
The idea is to be able to combine the grenade launcher role with the shot gun role...
A shotgun is a very versatile weapon but against humans you really only have buckshot and solid slugs. Adding small grenade rounds would make it rather more effective, especially if you could launch them a few hundred metres.
The Russians have the KS-23 shotgun so using that shotgun ammo would enable larger grenades to be designed and perhaps grenades with special features, like flechette rounds etc.
Of course they already have air burst 23mm projectiles and 30mm projectiles so they could be adapted to use in a grenade launcher of these calibres too...
Of course having said all that, perhaps another solution for drones is rifle scopes with built in laser range finders and ballistics computers so you can hit moving targets with rifle fire. Mounting such sights on light machine guns like the RPK-74 or the new RPL-20 belt fed weapon could make them rather useful against flying targets too.
Just as an example of what can be improvised at the front line:
One of the conflicts in Chechnia there were too many 40mm and 30mm grenade launcher grenades and not enough hand grenades so the men on and near the front line got to work...
Full 360 degree rotation of a turret in 1 second would be disturbing.
As Mir points out the observation drones are the key because they make the attack and suicide drones more effective.
A LIDAR system should enable a ground based optical system to detect even the smallest lowest RCS and lowest IR drones to be detected without giving your presence away to observation sources enormous distances away like you would with high energy radar.
EW kit to detect electronic communications would assist the process too even if it just locates drones and transmitters...
I think aerostats with MMW radar and EO sensors like FLIR and IIR as well as LIDAR operating at an altitude of maybe 4-5km altitude to keep it out of small arms fire range and also give an excellent unimpeded view of the battlefield and remain on station for weeks to months rather than minutes or hours.
Once you have the eyes in the sky then warning and command and control become much easier to deal with the threats spotted.
Of course APS type systems will still be needed for armoured vehicles to protect things launched from very close range from RPGs to ATGMs and drones of all types.
Airborne anti drone drones will need to become a thing as well.
They actually designed a 5.56mm six barrel gatling along with the other types including the 7.62mm and the 20mm and the 5.56mm was found to be rather useless.
It is essentially ineffective at ranges more than about 400m and uses an enormous amount of ammo, which most of the time is unnecessary.
HIgh rate of fire is useful against small fast targets, but its cost and lack of effective range make it rather less useful than a more conventional LMG with a belt feed.
The Russians have gatlings in 7.62x54R and 12.7x108mm and in 23x115mm and 30x165mm, but they didn't proceed with 5.45mm or 14.5mm designs AFAIK.
Enormous rates of fire are a bit redundant if you can have airburst cannon shells... cheaper and easier and with much better range and performance.
A 23x115mm single barrel gun... say based on the KPVB should be able to engage targets out to about 3-4km with airburst shells compensating for the much lower rate of fire.
There was an Aussie company who thought their metal storm weapons would also be big but again, really, it is only Air defence and anti missile systems that benefit from very high rates of fire and as we have seen in the Ukraine the west doesn't care about air defence or anti missile systems... they are attack and aircraft oriented.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6
