4 ms·

The technology does not destroy the attacker but the projectile. Also I assume objects travelling below a certain speed or heat threshold are not "processed" s

The technology does not destroy the attacker but the projectile. Also I assume objects travelling below a certain speed or heat threshold are not "processed" so most children or children-thrown objects would not be targeted.

Kristine1975 10y ago
>so most children or children-thrown objects would not be targeted. >most Great/s
- pc86 10y ago
  This seems like a willful misinterpretation of the comment.
  - mark_chosenberg 10y ago
    Do not mind the naysayers, they may be vocal now but Tsahal will also deal with them with equal retribution once the constant threat of palestinians is eradicated.
vlehto 10y ago
...so next step would be strapping anti-tank mine to heavy duty quadcopter? Another possibility would be adding stealthy nose-cones to RPGs. Then you have to increase radar power of the defending system. ...which would help enemy artillery to target the tanks. I'm not saying this system is nullified. Just that there will be ways to bypass it.
- vidarh 10y ago
  I strongly believe that the next step in asymmetric warfare will be the underdogs using swarms of drones where most are cheap, harmless "toys" to turn it into a numbers game to figure out which 1%-10% are full of explosives. As the cost of small drones drop, you'll potentially be able to drive up the cost of counter-measures dramatically with lots of dummies.
  - jabl 10y ago
    I'm not sure decoys are worth it really. Conventional explosive are cheap. Very cheap. You might as well stuff them into every "thing" you deploy. It's different with ICBM's. But yes, I think you have a point in that with COTS robot technology, it should be very cheap to produce swarms of simple missiles. If the adversary answers with "military-grade" countermeasures, he'd go bankrupt..
    - vidarh 10y ago
      As someone pointed out elsewhere, though, drones that can carry enough explosives, on the other hand, are not cheap. But drones that can be made up to look like they are drones that can carry enough explosives when seen from a bit of a distance is another matter.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    The payload is cheap compared to delivery and control. If you have a type of drone that can carry a useful payload (shaped charge powerful enough to disable a tank, in the ballpark of 5-10 kg, is not that feasible for a small drone - but a something like a frag grenade may be feasible), then you might as make them all real, the dummies would cost almost the same.
    - vlehto 10y ago
      There was recent news about drone that could carry full sized movie camera. Price was few thousands for the drone. If you go handgrenade size, the drone costs just bit over 100$.
      - PeterisP 10y ago
        A frag grenade costs something like $30 (and that's with military procurement overhead that would also raise the drone price to $300; mass produced third world grenades cost $5-$10 to their armies); a detonator, explosives and ballbearings for a DIY modification to that drone would be much cheaper. Anti-tank shaped explosive charge would be hundreds of dollars but again, a fraction of the drone cost.
adewinter 10y ago
The radar signature of a small projectile coming in at, say >30m/s is indeed a lot different from a running, tiny human. What about something like a soccer ball, though? It's a small-ish projectile, coming in quite slowly. What about a hand grenade? Hopefully they test for this stuff and have a firm idea of where they want their thresholds but, then again, sometimes bugs happen. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/ https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/
- protomyth 10y ago
  I get the feeling that destroying a kids soccer ball thrown at a tank is the least of the kid's worries in that situation. I would assume it would only go active with the permission of the people in the tank.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  These systems are set to ignore anything moving slower than 50 m/s or so. Even professionals can't kick a ball that fast. The lower limit is specifically set to avoid triggering the system on rocks, falling debris, birds, people, and anything else benign that might be moving in the area.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    The problem is that a thrown hand grenade is detectable by the system, but well under the limit. One publicized case of a soldier in a vehicle "protected" by this system but killed by a tossed hand grenade or hit by a grenade launcher from long range (ordinary 40mm grenades are only fired at about 75 m/s at the muzzle), and there will be calls for this value to be adjusted.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      The system is also capable of detecting firearm projectiles, but is specifically tuned not to react. Regardless of what calls may come, there won't be a change because the designers and the customers have already considered that possibility and specifically excluded it as not being worth the risk. This is not a case of being too cheap or short-sighted to do something.

Kristine1975 10y ago

>so most children or children-thrown objects would not be targeted. >most Great/s

pc86 10y ago
This seems like a willful misinterpretation of the comment.
- mark_chosenberg 10y ago
  Do not mind the naysayers, they may be vocal now but Tsahal will also deal with them with equal retribution once the constant threat of palestinians is eradicated.

vlehto 10y ago

...so next step would be strapping anti-tank mine to heavy duty quadcopter? Another possibility would be adding stealthy nose-cones to RPGs. Then you have to increase radar power of the defending system. ...which would help enemy artillery to target the tanks. I'm not saying this system is nullified. Just that there will be ways to bypass it.

vidarh 10y ago
I strongly believe that the next step in asymmetric warfare will be the underdogs using swarms of drones where most are cheap, harmless "toys" to turn it into a numbers game to figure out which 1%-10% are full of explosives. As the cost of small drones drop, you'll potentially be able to drive up the cost of counter-measures dramatically with lots of dummies.
- jabl 10y ago
  I'm not sure decoys are worth it really. Conventional explosive are cheap. Very cheap. You might as well stuff them into every "thing" you deploy. It's different with ICBM's. But yes, I think you have a point in that with COTS robot technology, it should be very cheap to produce swarms of simple missiles. If the adversary answers with "military-grade" countermeasures, he'd go bankrupt..
  - vidarh 10y ago
    As someone pointed out elsewhere, though, drones that can carry enough explosives, on the other hand, are not cheap. But drones that can be made up to look like they are drones that can carry enough explosives when seen from a bit of a distance is another matter.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  The payload is cheap compared to delivery and control. If you have a type of drone that can carry a useful payload (shaped charge powerful enough to disable a tank, in the ballpark of 5-10 kg, is not that feasible for a small drone - but a something like a frag grenade may be feasible), then you might as make them all real, the dummies would cost almost the same.
  - vlehto 10y ago
    There was recent news about drone that could carry full sized movie camera. Price was few thousands for the drone. If you go handgrenade size, the drone costs just bit over 100$.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      A frag grenade costs something like $30 (and that's with military procurement overhead that would also raise the drone price to $300; mass produced third world grenades cost $5-$10 to their armies); a detonator, explosives and ballbearings for a DIY modification to that drone would be much cheaper. Anti-tank shaped explosive charge would be hundreds of dollars but again, a fraction of the drone cost.

adewinter 10y ago

The radar signature of a small projectile coming in at, say >30m/s is indeed a lot different from a running, tiny human. What about something like a soccer ball, though? It's a small-ish projectile, coming in quite slowly. What about a hand grenade? Hopefully they test for this stuff and have a firm idea of where they want their thresholds but, then again, sometimes bugs happen. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/ https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

protomyth 10y ago
I get the feeling that destroying a kids soccer ball thrown at a tank is the least of the kid's worries in that situation. I would assume it would only go active with the permission of the people in the tank.
vonmoltke 10y ago
These systems are set to ignore anything moving slower than 50 m/s or so. Even professionals can't kick a ball that fast. The lower limit is specifically set to avoid triggering the system on rocks, falling debris, birds, people, and anything else benign that might be moving in the area.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  The problem is that a thrown hand grenade is detectable by the system, but well under the limit. One publicized case of a soldier in a vehicle "protected" by this system but killed by a tossed hand grenade or hit by a grenade launcher from long range (ordinary 40mm grenades are only fired at about 75 m/s at the muzzle), and there will be calls for this value to be adjusted.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    The system is also capable of detecting firearm projectiles, but is specifically tuned not to react. Regardless of what calls may come, there won't be a change because the designers and the customers have already considered that possibility and specifically excluded it as not being worth the risk. This is not a case of being too cheap or short-sighted to do something.