,
15 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
Drones. What to do about drones.
If they haven't already, their about to overtake ATGMs, due to their availability & affordability, as the weapon of choice in the fight against modern AFVs by both state & non-state actors. So what do we do about it? What are some of the options?
If they haven't already, their about to overtake ATGMs, due to their availability & affordability, as the weapon of choice in the fight against modern AFVs by both state & non-state actors. So what do we do about it? What are some of the options?
Fortunately there is some equipment, equipment already in-service or requiring minor repurposing to achieve an effect that reduces the potential threat to most legacy AFV fleets. Let's look at some of the kinetic options available to reduce the drone threat 1/ 
The increasing maturity of APS tech has arrived just in time. While orginally seen as the solution to restore the primacy of survivability to armour against the ever increasing potency of ATGMs, APSs utility is far greater in scope due to the installation of radar on AFVs 2/
The installation of threat locating radars on MBTs like Merk 4 and T90B have proved beyond doubt there effectiveness against ATGM but how does an APS system deal with the threat posed by something like a modern UCAV or weaponised COTS UAV? 3/
UCAV/ UAV are no different to any other rotary or fixed wing aircraft when it comes to vulnerability to ground based fires. Arguably in the case of weaponised COTS systems you could argue they are more vulnerable. You do not need a 30mm DU penetrator to destroy one of these 4/
But make no mistake, even an unarmed COTS UAV fitted with a Go pro could be deadly to a formation of AFVs. It's the aerial platforms link to other precision guided capabilities that presents the most danger. Drones are not a threat you can afford to ignore. 5/
So they can't be ignored, they need to be destroyed. The first tool available to achieve such an outcome is the main gun or autocannon fitted to all modern MBT/ IFVs. The ammunition natures, optics and Fire Control Systems already exist. 6/
Air burst munitions are available in 30mm, 35mm & 50mm. The 120mm M830A1 utilises a proximity fuse to engage aerial targets. Fired from an autocannon or tank cannon UCAV/ UAVs can be engaged from distances greater than 4kms at high angles right now. 7/
Should the UCAV/ UAV/UAVs survive the initial engagement and continue to approach the target, the platform would then utilise it's second line of defence, being the rapidly evolving, flexible and increasing lethal Remote Weapon Station. 8/
A capability evolving faster than the drone is the ever more impressive RWS. Able to be fitted with numerous wpn sys, modern RWSs incorporate day/ thermal sights, LRF and full stabilisation as standard fit. A 4 barrel 40mm with 2km engagement range would make a fine CUAS sys. 9/
If the UAV/ swarm survives the 1st & 2nd lines of defense then the platform has 1 option left before it relies on traditional armour options for it's survival. Point defensive by repurposing existing grenade launch systems incorporating HE ammo can engage targets out to 200m. 10/
For all these systems to function effectively as genuine defences against enemy UCAV/UAV however they need to be linked to the platforms threat locating radar, battle management system and slew to cue enabled FCS.
Such a platform, resident in it's normal Troop/Platoon/ Sqn/ Coy context would present a formidable anti UCAV/UAV capability. By incorporating the design philosophy used to defend major capital ships I.e. the layered defence, and existing or repurposed equipment currently
In-service, you could argue all the ingredients already exist to neutralise the threat presented by the proliferation of drones & thus maintaining armour's freedom to manouver on the modern battlefield. So what do we do about drones? Same thing as any other threat. Kill it. End/
