The end of tanks as we know it?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
I would be very irate if I was a senior Russian commander. Like the CIA is not wanting all those systems/tanks that are being captured.
I worked in teleoperated tracked systems. They need drone tanks IMO.
I worked in teleoperated tracked systems. They need drone tanks IMO.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Drones and tank drones are problematic in a war between technologically advanced countries. As long as they have to be remotely controlled (decision making is not done by the drone), jamming the remote control beams will always be easier than producing, maintaining, deploying and operating the drones.Yoozername wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 06:45I would be very irate if I was a senior Russian commander. Like the CIA is not wanting all those systems/tanks that are being captured.
I worked in teleoperated tracked systems. They need drone tanks IMO.
Drones are good for complementary warfare and against less developed countries, but they will not turn the table upside down. We can not even produce self-driving cars, so by the time the AI will be able to achieve the situational awareness required, we will prabably talk about robot wars.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
So let's send two (cheap) drones. The first will attack, autonomously, the very visible (and costly!) jammer, the other the real target.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
It doesn't really work; the research currently focuses on swarms of drones and taking out many of them at the same time. While a Bayraktar costs about 1-5m USD, a counter system like THOR will cost around 15-20m USD, although the prices are just indicative.
This is the battle of the beams all over again, except there is the possibility now to control drones via satellites, and thus it is possible to switch between control beams at a snap of a finger.
The autonomous attack is not really relevant because these counter systems are small and mobile, thus you can not pre-program a drone with a relatively small explosive to search and destroy it for sure.
Drones will be great if a developed country will attack into an underdeveloped zone, because it lowers the costs and eliminates human casualties, but in case of an attack between two developed belligerents, I can only see them useful in asymmetric deployment. Like, sending one or two at a time to harass the enemy, doing high risk recon flights or to force them to deploy disproportionate counter systems.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Jamming works for everything that is ever autonomous at some time. Your grasp of the obvious is exceptionable.Peter89 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 09:53Drones and tank drones are problematic in a war between technologically advanced countries. As long as they have to be remotely controlled (decision making is not done by the drone), jamming the remote control beams will always be easier than producing, maintaining, deploying and operating the drones.Yoozername wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 06:45I would be very irate if I was a senior Russian commander. Like the CIA is not wanting all those systems/tanks that are being captured.
I worked in teleoperated tracked systems. They need drone tanks IMO.
Drones are good for complementary warfare and against less developed countries, but they will not turn the table upside down. We can not even produce self-driving cars, so by the time the AI will be able to achieve the situational awareness required, we will prabably talk about robot wars.
Except , you don't know everything,
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Are they really that small? This is the primary Russian anti-drone system 1L269:
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
The T-72B tank of the DPR is fighting in Mariupol.
Infantry is not visible nearby.
In principle, in this position, the tank can be destroyed with several bottles of a combustible mixture (the so-called "Mlotov cocktail").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoHrf4aH880
Infantry is not visible nearby.
In principle, in this position, the tank can be destroyed with several bottles of a combustible mixture (the so-called "Mlotov cocktail").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoHrf4aH880
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Yes, too small and too mobile compared to the detonation radius of a single drone's armament.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
I never said I do.Yoozername wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 11:59Jamming works for everything that is ever autonomous at some time. Your grasp of the obvious is exceptionable.Peter89 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 09:53Drones and tank drones are problematic in a war between technologically advanced countries. As long as they have to be remotely controlled (decision making is not done by the drone), jamming the remote control beams will always be easier than producing, maintaining, deploying and operating the drones.Yoozername wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 06:45I would be very irate if I was a senior Russian commander. Like the CIA is not wanting all those systems/tanks that are being captured.
I worked in teleoperated tracked systems. They need drone tanks IMO.
Drones are good for complementary warfare and against less developed countries, but they will not turn the table upside down. We can not even produce self-driving cars, so by the time the AI will be able to achieve the situational awareness required, we will prabably talk about robot wars.
Except , you don't know everything,
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
So it will be more visually (large or small). In addition, this modification is called "Karasukha-2" - the element base is analog elements, and the chassis of the Bryansk Automobile Plant (BAZ)
A similar system "Karasukha-4", the same but digital elements, chassis for KAMAZ. The range is up to 300 km. The district of Kiev (at least the sulfur areas of the city) can be blocked from the territory of Russia.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
"Karasukha-2" in traffic off the roads
And finally. It is wrong to call the system "Krasukha" (2 or 4) drone counteraction system.
These systems jam all AWACS systems.
=======================And finally. It is wrong to call the system "Krasukha" (2 or 4) drone counteraction system.
These systems jam all AWACS systems.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
The Russian MOD also claimed 246 drones destroyed (3/26).
-
- Member
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Too small? A hand-grenade detonated near the antennas will disable them permanently.
What about the drone only transmitting coordinates of the target and, for example, the Turkish OMTAS (4 km range) taking care of the rest.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Not, no Krasukha-2, especially Krasukha-4/Tom from Cornwall wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 15:27Is this the same system? It was certainly visible!
Russian Jammer System - 22 March.JPG
Regards
Tom
I would rather assume that this is the S-300 all-altitude 96L6E detector. Affiliation cannot be established, both sides have these systems.