How Russia can respond to the threat of Turkish and Israeli UAVs

November 4, 2020 57

Against the background of the successes of the Turkish army in northern Syria and in Libya, as well as the Azerbaijani army in Nagorno-Karabakh, it is increasingly common to hear that the Russian Defense Ministry has nothing to oppose to Ankara and Tel Aviv in terms of shock drones, which have shown themselves quite well in hostilities. Is this really so? Let's try to figure it out.

The question is not entirely unambiguous and requires a balanced attitude towards oneself. On the one hand, Russia is indeed very far behind Israel, Turkey, the United States and China in terms of the production of shock and reconnaissance and strike UAVs. The reconnaissance "Outpost" is a licensed copy of an outdated Israeli model. There are plans to create a completely import-substituted version of it. Also, by order of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, work is underway on the domestic UAV "Orion", designed for visual, radar and radio-technical reconnaissance. In the future, these drones can be equipped with four air-to-ground missiles.

But while these are only the first steps, the production is carried out by piece. Against the background of these rather modest successes, video reports on the destruction of Turkish and Israeli UAVs of combat look very famously equipment Russian-made, including the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system in Libya and the S-300 air defense missile system in Armenia. If this information is perceived without proper preparation, then a false sense of the complete helplessness of domestic weapons against advanced Western technologies can be created. On the other hand, this feeling is really false. There are a number of fundamental factors to consider when evaluating these videos.

At first, we must be aware that only successful attacks by shock drones are made public. And how many unsuccessful people remained behind the scenes? Weapons are a very expensive commodity, so it is extremely beneficial for the Turks and Israelis to display them in the best possible light.

Secondly, it is necessary to understand that "Bayraktars" and other UAVs operate dashingly in conditionally greenhouse conditions. In Syria, they were opposed by a government army exhausted by a long-term war, in Libya - by the semi-guerrilla army of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar with poorly trained crews for the air defense missile system. In Nagorno-Karabakh, the army of the unrecognized republic is armed with short-range air defense systems. Let us add to this the fact that the Turkish military, who received real combat experience, including the use of attack drones, are involved in planning the operation by Azerbaijan. It was only thanks to the surprise effect that the opposing side was able to initially achieve significant success.

However, in war, every weapon is always protected. When the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation brought up Buki and Tora in Idlib, the situation quickly changed and Turkish UAVs began to fall. In Libya, "Buk-2ME" were able to clear the sky from the "Bayraktar". What can we say about how the unmanned aircraft of the air defense and electronic warfare systems of the regular Russian army, which is capable of delivering missile and airstrikes directly to the control centers of enemy UAVs, can thin out? Do not forget that the RF Ministry of Defense has a wide arsenal of other means of destruction.

Yes, attack drones are a fairly effective means of modern warfare, but they are not a real "wunderwaffe". It is certainly necessary to deal with them, this is a strong argument, however, one should not overestimate their role in the war against a normal army. Yes, Russia has lagged far behind its competitors in this area, but undoubtedly it will eventually catch up.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

steelmaker

+1

4 November 2020 17: 18

COST: An ANKA-type UAV with a flight weight of 1,5 tons and a payload of 250 kg with autonomous and multi-frequency control and electronic warfare means is 9 times more expensive than one Buk-M2E air defense missile system, and the lighter Bayraktar is 4 times more expensive.
Note: The price of the second batch of three Bayraktar TB2 UAVs for Ukraine is 74,027 million dollars. In 2007-2008. Ukrspetsexport sold to Georgia two divisions of the Buk-M1 air defense missile system of 6 9M310 missiles and 48 9M38M1 missiles for about $ 25-30 million. For 6 9A310M1 missiles - $ 12,147 million. For 48 9M38M1 missiles - $ 5,256 million. For 2 9M381GVM - USD 65,6 thousand
So what? The economy must be economical!
1. Bakht
  
  +2
  
  4 November 2020 17: 35
  
  This is all true. But cost cannot be a measure of efficiency. Should be considered, but not the main parameter. At the same time, one should not forget about the mass character. Let's say the first Windows cost about $ 1 million. This is the cost of research, development, failure and bad decisions. But when put on stream, the cost of 1 Windows is now a few dollars.
  Of course, the UAVs are not in any way pulled on the wunderwaffe. But we must admit that they have already changed the picture of the battle at the tactical level. It seems that as part of the units, it will be necessary to strengthen not only air defense, but also electronic warfare systems. Are they, say, at the battalion level? Moreover, no one tested the effectiveness of a swarm of cheap shock UAVs in real conditions. Chinese, for example, are not entirely successful now. But everyone knows very well that China, in principle, can flood the market with cheap crafts of almost any product.
  When using UAVs, I would also consider the issue of stealth. Small impact UAVs will be difficult to spot. And they will not need a developed airfield network.
  What is the likelihood of the emergence of "jihad mobiles with UAV launchers"? Chinese or Iranian origin.
  1. Dear sofa expert.
    
    +5
    
    4 November 2020 21: 34
    
    But we must admit that they have already changed the picture of the battle at the tactical level.
    
    Correctly. Key words - tactical level.
    
    In the conditions of your war, where even geographically there is not enough tactical depth, these means are really effective.
    
    The tactical depth of defense is the distance from the line of contact with the enemy to the rear border of the first echelon of the army. It usually includes the first and second lines of defense. But as the means of armed struggle develop, the attacker tends to increase.
    Where should the opposing side (NK) increase it? Where can one create, for example, an effective layered air defense system?
    
    The author of the article is right. Large UAVs for a well-organized defense system are not a problem. They can be detected, shot down and jammed, from great distances, and destroyed command posts, while remaining practically invulnerable.
    This requires special means, well-trained specialists, and of course the territorial depth of defense.
    
    With small "inexpensive" (see artisanal) UAVs - tell me, what is the real range of these "wunderwolf"? 5km? Jihad is mobile?)
    
    This is a distance for you, but not for the defense of Russia.
    1. Bakht
      
      0
      
      4 November 2020 21: 44
      
      The real range is 150 km, the duration of stay in the air is increased to 7 hours. Low combat load. But they are working on it.
      For example:
      
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_(БПЛА)
      
      Can be carried in a backpack, preparation for launch from a catapult takes ten minutes,
      
      There are other modifications as well. But the performance characteristics are still unknown. Sizes can be compared in the photo
      
      https://1news.az/mobile/news/azerbaydzhanskie-bpla-poluchili-nazvanie-iti-qovan---foto
      1. Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        4 November 2020 22: 45
        
        yes, a low combat load.
        
        Is a $ 700 grenade too expensive?)
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        4 November 2020 23: 19
        
        It's not really a combat load. This is a reconnaissance drone. If, 15-20 km from the front line, he discovers a battery and gives target designation - the price is quite acceptable. Well, if you put 1,5 kg of a shaped charge, and even on top of the tank, it is quite acceptable. Self-aiming combat elements on SMERCH missiles have 4,5 kg of explosive.
        We can discuss or mock - it doesn't matter. These drones have already been tested in battle and have shown their effectiveness. There are doubts due to the weak air defense. But in the early days, air defense was considered reliable. The fact that she was knocked out was not least due to the UAV.
        I do not pretend to know all the intricacies of military affairs. But the result is visible. They are effective in this theater of operations, otherwise Azerbaijan would not have put their production on stream.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        4 November 2020 23: 36
        
        They are effective in this theater of operations, otherwise Azerbaijan would not have put their production on stream.
        
        With all due respect to you, Bakhtiyar, let's still consider the effectiveness of these types of weapons, in the context of this article?)
        
        Here, check out the structure and the Combat strength of the Air Defense Forces of the Russian Armed Forces.
        
        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Войска_ПВО_Сухопутных_войск_Российской_Федерации
        
        Then tell me, is it possible at all to say that the NK army had air defense, which someone, with something there, destroyed?)
        
        Bakht
        
        -1
        
        4 November 2020 23: 38
        
        If not difficult, give the name of the link in Russian. I have encoding restrictions
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        4 November 2020 23: 55
        
        If not difficult, give the name of the link in Russian. May has encoding restrictions
        
        Then just write:
        Wikipedia. The Air Defense Forces of the Ground Forces are a branch of the Ground Forces of the Russian Federation.
        
        Bakht
        
        -1
        
        4 November 2020 23: 57
        
        I've already looked. Not very informative. Wikipedia only gives a general idea. I have read the conclusions of the American military. Apparently, these officers visited Donbass.
        It's late now and it's hard for me to search. I will try to find this report. Rather comments to it
        
        Bakht
        
        -1
        
        5 November 2020 00: 01
        
        Check out this article. You can agree or not. But in any case, you need to know.
        
        https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/09/27/73987-skandal-kak-po-uchebniku-pentagona
        
        Bakht
        
        -1
        
        5 November 2020 00: 04
        
        The widespread use of unmanned aerial vehicles by the Russian side is an important feature of the Donbass campaign during the Russian-Ukrainian war. However, when discussing the ubiquitous presence of unmanned aerial vehicles, the way the Russian side used them is often overlooked. They were used not only for aerial surveillance, but are also part of a highly integrated system that takes advantage of the air defense system and long-range strike capabilities. The Russian reconnaissance-strike model, which includes unmanned aerial vehicles, rocket and artillery shelling, special reconnaissance, cyber weapons and geolocation technology, has produced impressive tactical and operational results in Donbas on several occasions.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        5 November 2020 01: 16
        
        Check out this article.
        
        I looked.
        To be honest, I'm sorry for the time to read this kind of nonsense. You can argue and debate a lot on the topic of hybrid wars. You can even fit your war into this category. Well, for example, not to recognize any "army of Nagorno-Karabakh", but to present it as a hybrid war between Armenia using the "Armenian identity" of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Turkey using the same "Turkish identity" with the people of Azerbaijan.)
        Decide it yourself, at your discretion.
        Let's leave all this lyrics.
        Briefly and specifically on the article:
        The Americans may not even hope for a hybrid or any local war, against Russia, and even in the zone of its immediate interests.
        For this "duelism" Russia will have neither extra funds, nor in general, any other "noble" impulses. Their "limited contingent", if he shows his nose there, will simply be flattened like cockroaches. It doesn't matter how it will look tactically. Russia has vast experience in conducting military operations on its soil. As they say, even the walls help at home. The main thing is that no one there will stand on ceremony with them.
        
        And they will set their tail between their legs, as they did in history, a la Vietnam, more than once, and leave.
        
        They are not used to fighting for self-destruction. And Russia, if necessary, will.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        5 November 2020 09: 56
        
        Sorry. The article is still a little about something else.
        First. This particular war is not being waged to destroy the state of Armenia. It is about submitting to the will of another state and about changing the political course. But this is not Azerbaijan. Who is fighting who is the secret of hybrid warfare.
        Second. We are talking about the tactics of using BTGr. No wonder Gerasimov wants to increase their number to 150. And the transition to a divisional and corps structure is connected precisely with this. The brigades do not provide long-term operation of the BTGr.
        I would pose the question, what means of electronic warfare and air defense will the BTGr possess and will they be able to defend themselves against a swarm of UAVs?
        
        Two consequences follow from point 2.
        First. No irregular units in the form of gangs of mercenaries in serious clashes are needed by anyone in FIG. They simply do not fit into the structure of the personnel units.
        Second. The Azerbaijani army uses not the NATO, but the Russian scheme of warfare.
        Thank you for your comments.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        5 November 2020 11: 16
        
        The article is still a little about something else.
        
        Yes, I honestly told you - sorry for the time to read. The article is long, carefully written, but very one-sidedly biased against Russia. In short, the usual propaganda.
        
        First. This particular war is not being waged to destroy the state of Armenia.
        
        If we take the war of Azerbaijan against Armenia as a basis, then you are right.
        If we consider it as a hybrid: Turkey, provoked and is waging the war with your hands, then we can assume the opposite. And there is every reason to think so: you started the operation to return NK only after you were "supported" by Turkey. Otherwise, you could have done it earlier. You've had 30 years for this! The conclusion is not your war. You are only "the hands of the Sultan" in it. But this is just my vision, so do not strain so immediately.)
        
        It is about submission to the will of another state and about changing the political course
        
        Not necessarily. It is enough to chop off part of the territory (Kosovo).
        
        Who is fighting who is the secret of hybrid warfare.
        
        It is not entirely clear for you either. There are too many participants.
        
        I would pose the question, what means of electronic warfare and air defense will the BTGr possess and will they be able to defend themselves against a swarm of UAVs?
        
        In principle, these funds are available: from Arena M, Afganit with Malachite, Lesochek, Shtora, Sama armor, new concepts for the location of the crew or its absence, effective camouflage means, support for well-organized reconnaissance, air defense, and Aerospace Forces, though you need to list all this ?
        
        I understand your engagement in this topic, Bakhtiyar, but I want to remind you once again: this article is about Russia's ability to oppose something to these military means (UAV).
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        5 November 2020 12: 35
        
        About the war. Turkey has supported Azerbaijan for all 30 years. And there was no big war. Turkey has been blocking the border with Armenia for 35 years and there was no war. Now the war is on. Turkey's role is minimal here. It is Russia who is waging a hybrid war. If Russia keeps the base in Gyumri and additionally gets the base in Karabakh (peacekeepers), then who will win?
        This is exactly what we are talking about - Russia's ability to withstand drones. This should be done precisely at the tactical level of the company-battalion
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        5 November 2020 14: 42
        
        About the war.
        
        Okay, let’s finish, this dispute is not necessary for either you or even more so for me. This is not about your war.
        
        This is exactly what we are talking about - Russia's ability to withstand drones.
        
        Yes, we are talking about a hypothetical possibility.
        
        Russia has it. Starting from the air defense systems themselves "for internal use". It has completely different possibilities than products "for export" The same applies to everything else.
        
        This is not even the question.
        
        I don't understand all this hype around UAVs at all.
        
        Well, today the Armenians do not have sufficient modern and adequate means and methods of protection.
        But this does not mean at all that no one has them. And here, as it were, a question for Russia.
        
        Well listen .. all these "epoch-making successes", with the destruction of a couple of dozen military equipment during hostilities - a normal thing. All these carelessly disguised and poorly defended targets are on the conscience of the Armenian military art and their objective capabilities.
        Well, the Armenians would destroy (if they could) you a couple of command posts for these "wunderwaves" along with the entire supply of UAVs, and most importantly - personnel!
        And where would you find new trained operators so quickly, for example? Or have you added a waffle to the combat strength?
        Or, they retreated into the mountains, and immediately - the effectiveness of these UAVs decreased significantly.
        War is like war. You hit, you are answered.
        
        Therefore, it is stupid to make some kind of "epic" out of all this.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        5 November 2020 19: 50
        
        Well, that's where I started
        
        Of course, the UAVs are not in any way pulled on the wunderwaffe.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        5 November 2020 00: 05
        
        I've already looked. Not very informative. Wikipedia only gives a general idea.
        
        It is enough to understand that this is a different level in comparison with NK.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        4 November 2020 23: 55
        
        There is not enough material in the context of this article. It is necessary to seriously prepare to write such an article. Starting from the doctrine of Gerasimov and the study of the structure of compounds.
        1. What is the meaning of the transition from brigade to divisional manning?
        2. What is the basic scheme of BTGr actions?
        3. Why do Americans believe that the Russian battalion group is stronger than the American brigade group?
        4. What squad of air defense forces can a division provide for 3-4 BTGs?
        5. What is the provision of electronic warfare funds for the division and what are their capabilities?
        6. Can a battalion repel an attack from several dozen drones simultaneously?
        These are only those questions that lie on the surface and are known to a purely civilian. That is to me. I no longer touch upon the issues of supply and troop control.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        4 November 2020 23: 36
        
        The question is not about the ratio of the cost of different types of weapons. The question is posed differently. Is the army capable of defeating the enemy? If you can, then any costs are justified. We are dealing with new weapons. Of course, there is a counter weapon for him. But this takes time and new methods of struggle. At one time, the Panzerdivisions terrified Europe. But there was also a scrap against them.
        Let me quote G. Guderian
        
        What is impact force? It is a force that allows a soldier in battle to bring his weapon closer to the enemy's defense and destroy this enemy. Only troops with this strength can attack.
        
        Based on this definition, it becomes clear that the Armenian army is not in a position to attack. Until it lands Azerbaijani drones, the Armenian army can count on local strikes and private successes. But he is losing the war. In this case, the cost of drones is justified.
        Well, again about China. He is able to saturate troops with small flying ammunition at a paltry price and in unlimited quantities. It's like ants hunted an elephant. "The main thing is to dump, then we will trample our feet"
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        5 November 2020 00: 12
        
        Based on this definition, it becomes clear that the Armenian army is not in a position to attack.
        
        He believed that the attacking side was Azerbaijan.
        
        Well, again about China.
        
        What has China to do with it?
        
        If you mean in the context of a hypothetical war with Russia, this is a different scale. There will not be places for drones.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        5 November 2020 00: 18
        
        China can provide the required amount of cheap loitering ammunition. In my opinion, UAVs are a problem at the moment.
        The Azerbaijani army is advancing this is true. But the Armenians are trying to counterattack. So far, these attempts are suppressed. Last but not least, this is the merit of the drones. If the Armenian army decided to go into deep defense, then this is a direct path to defeat.
        According to the latest information, the road through the Lachin corridor has been intercepted. If the Armenians do not unblock it, then the collapse of the troops in Karabakh is inevitable. So they have to attack.
    2. bobba94
      
      0
      
      5 November 2020 22: 53
      
      I googled information about UAV attacks on the Khmeimim military base. The result - over the 5 years of the existence of the military base (airfield) on Khmeimim, hundreds of UAV attacks of various models and types were made, but ... ... a layered air defense system was installed there and not a single attack reached the target. The author is right, UAVs are effective in the war with the barmaley ..... UAVs are not afraid of the regular army at all
Vladimir Tuzakov

+4

4 November 2020 17: 30

So, in essence, the article does not indicate how it is possible to repel loitering ammunition, and which are smaller than Bayraktars ... Buki and Torah will quickly empty the launchers, with dozens of cheap ammunition loitering, and then the shooting of those left without air defense, which we see in many videos of Azerbaijan .. ... So far, no means are visible for reliable defense against loitering ammunition and shock UAVs in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, most of them have no striking means, and this is a verdict ... Experience in Syria is zero, because they dealt with homemade products from store kits of amateur drones .. The puncture of the weapons military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation is complete, one can only state about the "unparalleled" backwardness of the RF Armed Forces ...
1. The comment was deleted.
amateur

+1

4 November 2020 18: 02
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has nothing to oppose to Ankara and Tel Aviv in terms of shock drones, which showed themselves quite well in hostilities.

We must stop reading propaganda and think. All these UAVs have performance characteristics (speed, flight altitude, etc.) at the level of the II MV Junkers 87 dive bomber. Almost all modern air defense systems are designed to deal with a piece of supersonic aircraft flying at transonic or supersonic speeds. Therefore, it is economically unprofitable to use an expensive air defense missile against a "penny" drone, and even used in large quantities. But if you put the usual "Shilka", but with an updated radio-technical part of the locator and a video and infrared guidance system, or even a ZPU-4, then the era of drones will quickly end.
1. Barmaley_2
  
  0
  
  5 November 2020 00: 20
  
  What is real ?! Well, they are all stupid! Especially the Americans. They didn’t know and made their own helfiers or Turkish guided anti-tank missiles UMTAS on bayraktar with a launch range of 8 km. And so they would know that everything is needed, so to the affected area air defense zushki or zpu-4 enter (well, what if at least somehow it was interesting and some kind of intrigue "for an honest" war was preserved), then the range of their missiles would have been made no more than 2-2.5 km.
Sergey Latyshev

-1

4 November 2020 18: 32

Bullshit question.
1) In the post, only general words about "saturate the air defense" and everything will pass. What is wrong.
2) The downing of a UAV in the news is also piecemeal, almost at the level of the plane.
Nowhere they are knocked down in swarms.
3) In the internet there are videos of shooting at a radio-controlled mini-UAV target at the shooting range. Maneuvers - you'll get FIG.
That is, the UAV - suicide bombers so constantly cannot be brought down, and the price, with the development of electronics, can be penny ...
1. Dear sofa expert.
  
  +2
  
  4 November 2020 21: 49
  
  The downing of a UAV in the news is also piecemeal, almost at the level of the plane.
  Nowhere they are knocked down in swarms.
  3) In the internet there are videos of shooting at a radio-controlled mini-UAV target at the shooting range. Maneuvers - you'll get FIG.
  
  It's really difficult to get into a single player. But a lone UAV is also a lone threat. So there is no point in exaggerating it.
  
  But your "swarm" is easier to destroy than you think.
  One air defense missile can have up to 40 thousand striking elements, and during an explosion it creates a rather voluminous and dense obstruction "cloud", when passing through which, from your "swarm" - horns and legs will remain.
  1. Sergey Latyshev
    
    -2
    
    4 November 2020 23: 33
    
    Yes, cool.
    No one has a swarm yet, and it is already easy to destroy him, with one rocket.)))
    The fact that the "swarm" in a handful only flies on representations of quadcopters .... what a trifle))) ...
    Air defense caps for throwing probably full warehouses ...
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      0
      
      4 November 2020 23: 58
      
      No one has roy yet
      
      Well, you voiced the swarm, but I just suggested a hypothetical version of its destruction.)
      1. Sergey Latyshev
        
        -2
        
        5 November 2020 06: 51
        
        Strange.
        When the same option was voiced to destroy hypersonic targets, many suddenly sharply opposed and minus ...
        However, the truth is not to anyone's taste ...
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        5 November 2020 23: 23
        
        When the same option was voiced to destroy hypersonic targets, many suddenly sharply opposed and minus ...
        
        A hypersonic target - shrapnel?
        
        Well, theoretically, you can try, although the strength of such a "target" itself can withstand a load more abruptly than a "nail" strike in an atmosphere.)
        Here you need a more powerful kinetic blow. A blank at least, a kilogram weighing 15.)
        Well, and get, of course, a shot from the hip .. a bullet - in a bullet. (As in a cowboy movie)))
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -2
        
        6 November 2020 00: 25
        
        School physics course. Oncoming speeds are summed up. Let's say 2M + 5m = 7m - 2,2 km / s. More than an anti-tank round.
        
        Are you going to punch the flying Armats and Abrams?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        6 November 2020 02: 35
        
        Are you going to punch the flying Armats and Abrams?
        
        I don't know .. who will tell you this here?
        I only understand that the material from which the "Vanguard" warhead is made, which can withstand extreme loads, must have a huge margin of safety.
        The block is shaped like a cone.
        
        Due to the huge hypersonic speed of movement, another cone diverges in the air from the top of the hull - a shock wave, as if enclosing a warhead. This is where the greatest compaction of the counter flow is formed. The area of this seal moves slightly forward, as if detaching from the body. And stays in front, assuming the shape of a thick lens or pillow. This formation is called a "detached bow shock". It is several times thicker than the rest of the shock wave cone around the warhead.
        
        With such a kind of "shield", the warhead will pass through a cloud of shrapnel, like an awl through a potato sack.
        How do you like my arguments?)
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -1
        
        6 November 2020 09: 36
        
        You do not.
        The anti-tank core has a weight of 3-5 kg, a speed of 1700 m / s, and is designed to penetrate 60 cm of special, anti-penetrating armor. You have surpassed it 5 times. Through at least 3 "flying abrams".
        
        The Challenger cocked at one time from the lightest piece of keramo-foam. There the emphasis is on resistance to overheating, not impact.
        
        All the armor in the VKS is overweight, and even those flying in the 3M Miga have no armor as such, everything is against overheating. That shrapnel will fly off from a real MIG or TU, because they have a "detached head shock wave" at 2-3 m - nobody wrote such nonsense at all, IMHO.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        6 November 2020 11: 17
        
        The anti-tank core has a weight of 3-5 kg, a speed of 1700 m / s, and is designed to penetrate 60 cm of special, anti-penetrating armor.
        
        At what geometric angle does the "armor" lie on the cone - have you taken into account?) Well, is there a hypothetical possibility of ricocheting?)
        
        And the rest that I wrote was somehow poorly taken into account.)
        
        Challenger is ..
        
        well compared))). It's like a tin can against a chisel. The manned vehicle is less streamlined and not as densely filled inside as the warhead. Astronauts are in no hurry to descend quickly. The warhead is a weapon. She must reach her goal as soon as possible.
        
        All armor in the videoconferencing is overweight
        
        The warhead and the means of delivery are a little "two big differences.")
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -2
        
        6 November 2020 11: 53
        
        So now it's armor, not a "detached head shockwave."
        
        Okay, it's an empty argument, both non-specialists, let's finish.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        6 November 2020 13: 07
        
        So now it's armor, not a "detached head shockwave."
        
        So you turn out to be a kind of another dodger) who wants to catch me at my word?)
        Is this your main "strategy" for leading discussions?
        
        Okay, let's leave your "military tricks" behind the scenes.
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -4
        
        6 November 2020 13: 33
        
        And, rudeness went in response. Especially since you can't talk to such people
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        6 November 2020 14: 23
        
        And, rudeness went in response.
        
        Well yes. Rudeness to rudeness. How else?
        Or did you think that your primitive malice is a reliable mask behind which no one sees your pathological lack of culture?
        
        Michael I
        
        -1
        
        10 November 2020 07: 46
        
        The armor is set at an angle, not to ricochet, but to increase its thickness when the projectile enters it parallel to the ground. With a cumulative jet, no ricochet is possible
Roman Soloviev

0

4 November 2020 19: 23

They are in the sky at a glance. Against drones, kamikaze drones are needed with automatic guidance from the ground from radar and optical means.
Ser sash

+2

4 November 2020 19: 30

The most effective against UAVs is pilot aircraft
Afinogen

+2

4 November 2020 20: 20

And if you ignite the drones with deadly rays? I'm not an expert, just as an option.
Binder

-4

4 November 2020 21: 57

The author put a very eloquent phrase in the title of the article -

How Russia can respond to the threat of Turkish and Israeli UAVs

- only a question mark for some reason did not put ... Although, without a question, the matter is clear: the Russian military today has nothing to oppose to modern unmanned aircraft, and then it will only get worse - the future belongs to autonomous robotic systems, combat complexes equipped with fundamentally new types of weapons, artificial the intelligence that drives these systems. And in this area, Russia is hopelessly behind the leaders, alas. Turkish UAVs Bayraktar and Israeli patrolling ammunition IAI Harop, successfully smashing Armenian equipment in Karabakh, is already the day before yesterday, the development of this direction of weapons is advancing at a rapid pace and today unmanned combat systems are increasingly used not only in aviation, but also in the navy and on land TVD.
1. Dear sofa expert.
  
  -1
  
  5 November 2020 00: 14
  
  Although without a question, the matter is clear: the Russian military today has nothing to oppose to modern unmanned aircraft
  
  Will you launch them from Lebanese territory, warriors?))
  1. Binder
    
    -6
    
    5 November 2020 05: 57
    
    You have nothing to say in essence.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      +2
      
      5 November 2020 23: 46
      
      You have nothing to say in essence.
      
      No, why not? I can tell a joke .. old.)
      
      D'Artagnan and three musketeers are sitting in a tavern at one table, and three heroes at the next. They drink. We exchanged words, began mutual insults. D'Artagnan got up, walked over to Ilya Muromets and drew a small cross on his chest with chalk. Muromets looked at him in surprise and asked:
      - And what the hell is this?
      “This is the place that will soon pierce the point of my sword,” D'Artagnan said pathetically.
      Muromets lazily turned to his friends:
      - Dobrynya, sprinkle lime on the head of this hero from a bucket, and you, Alyosha ... give me my big club!
      
      Funny, huh?)
2. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  5 November 2020 07: 52
  
  Quote: Bindyuzhnik
  Although the matter is clear without question: the Russian military today has nothing to oppose to modern unmanned aircraft, and it will only get worse - the future belongs to autonomous robotic systems, combat complexes equipped with fundamentally new types of weapons, and artificial intelligence that controls these systems. And in this area, Russia is hopelessly behind the leaders, alas.
  
  Don't be in a hurry to bury us. It will be necessary, we will steal your technology, buy or copy equipment, etc. And don't give a damn about your copyright.
  We have already gone through all this. Because your crocodile tears about the technical backwardness of Russia are ridiculous.
  1. Natan bruk
    
    -1
    
    5 November 2020 13: 16
    
    Yeah, they just took it and stole it, bought it, copied it :))) You bought the drones of the day before yesterday (that is, what you agreed to sell). These are the "Outposts" and "Outposts".
  2. Binder
    
    -5
    
    5 November 2020 15: 39
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    It will be necessary, we will steal your technology, buy or copy equipment, etc. And don't give a damn about your copyright.
    We have already gone through all this.
    
    But who doubts, Mr. Marzhetsky? The history of the Soviet military-industrial complex consists entirely of thefts and borrowings from foreign developers. But the times are different now, no matter how successfully you steal, you will still lag behind - the pace of development and advancement of new developments in the field of unmanned systems is higher today than ever before.
Barmaley_2

+2

5 November 2020 00: 05

it's so funny to read excuses in essence, but in fact, reality smeared with shit and the apparent helplessness of both warriors in the listed countries, and the outright antiquity and ineffectiveness of their weapons. But wasp-akm cannot work on kamikaze drones or bayraktar, while shells have serious problems with dead zones, etc., and therefore they began to sharply modernize them. And do not forget that the main system of the army air defense of the Russian Federation is the same wasp or arrow-10 as that of the Armenians.
And who said that for the use of any complex there would be ideal conditions, etc.? In war as in war! And who promised that the enemy is not as stupid as we would like and not so trained and not the one who counted?
And the result is on the face and everything else looks more like childish excuses: it was not me who did it, but the cook cooked semolina porridge too thin today and for some reason it did not go, or the teacher poured more porridge than half a half and didn’t come in too much. Azerbaijanis were able to return a good part of Karabakh back and inserted a wick to the Armenians, but this is already a fact and the general population will not even understand the grenades of one or the wrong system.
DeGreen

+1

5 November 2020 10: 23

Good and correct article
Wanderer039

0

6 November 2020 04: 42

Georgia used drones against the Russian Federation in 2008. The MiG-29s of the Russian Air Force coped with them.
KYYC

0

22 November 2020 11: 18

What to do?

Develop a radar station to "see" aircraft at a distance of 10-20 km. And teach to distinguish from a flock of birds.

Second, to improve the missile homing of the air defense system.

There is no other way.
Dmitry Donskoy

0

3 December 2020 16: 27

Nothing at all .... Definitely