5 ms·

That doesn't work on light-skinned vehicles, or aircraft.

by greedo 1y ago

jandrewrogers 1y ago
Irrelevant to the question, which was if military radar existed that could detect and track small objects at relatively short-range. The technology is modular and in fact fast enough to detect and engage supersonic threats. The military could wire up any response they wish to a detected threat (and they have). It doesn’t literally have to be the Trophy system. That serves as an existence proof and is a well-known example of such tech. The engineers that design these things seem to have more imagination than their critics.
- greedo 1y ago
  APS systems like Trophy aren't anything special. And radar already exists that can track and target drones down to FPV size. Most AD radars are tuned to ignore birds and small objects that aren't moving in a consistent speed and direction. So it's not a matter of solving a detection/tracking problem, but instead a matter of enough effectors to take down a swarm. Covering an airbase will be expensive, and there's the problem of false positives; say you deploy 4 Skynex systems around an air base. Drones attack, you down them but the fratricide ends up damaging aircraft anyways. C-RAM has been around protecting bases in the Middle East for years, and those 30mm rounds have to land somewhere...
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    Again, you are missing the point. The technical capability exists, you are arguing the details. Obsessing over APS isn’t materially contributing to your argument. The technology isn’t constrained by your examples. We are not talking about traditional AD radars. Trying to make it about AD radars is disingenuous. You are pretending that things that have proven solutions don’t actually have solutions. I’m not saying the current set of solutions implementations is perfect but you are not making a credible argument that they don’t exist. Local battle-space sensing is very fast and very effective as a matter of record, at least in the US arsenal. That tech may not exist in the Ukraine/Russia theater but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
    - greedo 1y ago
      Pretty sure that I'm not the one who brought up Trophy systems? Yes the technology exists to mitigate some of the risk. It's not deployed currently, and is very expensive. There are significant limitations to these systems, and most haven't seen combat. You're trivializing a complex problem by pointing out that it's technically feasible, when it's more than just "we have the technology." Show me a "proven system" in the US arsenal that can protect a large airbase from this type of attack. Not similar technology that the DoD has talked about converting to address this threat, but purchased, deployed systems.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    >C-RAM has been around protecting bases in the Middle East for years, and those 30mm rounds have to land somewhere... Actually no, the CRAM based Phalanx systems use self-detonating ammo. They explode after their tracer runs out. The Naval versions use kinetic penetration rounds with tungsten cores and do not self detonate. Also they are 20mm
    - greedo 1y ago
      Thanks for the correction. My brain always associates anything Phalanx with 30mm.
andrewflnr 1y ago
It would work fine on the ground, which is where Russia needed it (and where the rest of the world will continue to need it).
- greedo 1y ago
  It already exists on the ground for armored vehicles, but is useless for protecting aircraft on the ground. The last thing you want around thin-skinned aircraft is something that explodes!
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    To be clear, around the perimeter of the base. But also, you do realize these planes are members of a large class that exist entirely to be near things that explode?
    - greedo 1y ago
      Ummm, bombers have no desire to be around things that explode. They want to drop their bombs/missiles, and then get out of Dodge as quick as possible. The munitions on the ground are (at least on Western air bases) housed in very well protected vaults. Airplanes are so relatively fragile, that it's common for airbases and aircraft carriers to conduct FOD walks to make sure their runways are free of small pieces of metal debris that could be ingested by their engines. It doesn't take a lot to put an airplane out of commission. These aren't A-10s with titanium bathtubs protecting their pilots. They're large, slow, aluminum skinned craft that have limited maneuverability, and are the quintessential "bomb trucks" for Russia.
      - andrewflnr 1y ago
        Yeah, I know. And you think this rules out putting anti-drone air-defense guns around air bases? Do you have an argument?
        greedo 1y ago

That doesn't work on light-skinned vehicles, or aircraft.

by greedo 1y ago

That doesn't work on light-skinned vehicles, or aircraft.

Irrelevant to the question, which was if military radar existed that could detect and track small objects at relatively short-range. The technology is modular and in fact fast enough to detect and engage supersonic threats. The military could wire up any response they wish to a detected threat (and they have). It doesn’t literally have to be the Trophy system. That serves as an existence proof and is a well-known example of such tech. The engineers that design these things seem to have more imagination than their critics.

greedo 1y ago
APS systems like Trophy aren't anything special. And radar already exists that can track and target drones down to FPV size. Most AD radars are tuned to ignore birds and small objects that aren't moving in a consistent speed and direction. So it's not a matter of solving a detection/tracking problem, but instead a matter of enough effectors to take down a swarm. Covering an airbase will be expensive, and there's the problem of false positives; say you deploy 4 Skynex systems around an air base. Drones attack, you down them but the fratricide ends up damaging aircraft anyways. C-RAM has been around protecting bases in the Middle East for years, and those 30mm rounds have to land somewhere...
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Again, you are missing the point. The technical capability exists, you are arguing the details. Obsessing over APS isn’t materially contributing to your argument. The technology isn’t constrained by your examples. We are not talking about traditional AD radars. Trying to make it about AD radars is disingenuous. You are pretending that things that have proven solutions don’t actually have solutions. I’m not saying the current set of solutions implementations is perfect but you are not making a credible argument that they don’t exist. Local battle-space sensing is very fast and very effective as a matter of record, at least in the US arsenal. That tech may not exist in the Ukraine/Russia theater but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
  - greedo 1y ago
    Pretty sure that I'm not the one who brought up Trophy systems? Yes the technology exists to mitigate some of the risk. It's not deployed currently, and is very expensive. There are significant limitations to these systems, and most haven't seen combat. You're trivializing a complex problem by pointing out that it's technically feasible, when it's more than just "we have the technology." Show me a "proven system" in the US arsenal that can protect a large airbase from this type of attack. Not similar technology that the DoD has talked about converting to address this threat, but purchased, deployed systems.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  >C-RAM has been around protecting bases in the Middle East for years, and those 30mm rounds have to land somewhere... Actually no, the CRAM based Phalanx systems use self-detonating ammo. They explode after their tracer runs out. The Naval versions use kinetic penetration rounds with tungsten cores and do not self detonate. Also they are 20mm
  - greedo 1y ago
    Thanks for the correction. My brain always associates anything Phalanx with 30mm.

andrewflnr 1y ago

It would work fine on the ground, which is where Russia needed it (and where the rest of the world will continue to need it).

greedo 1y ago
It already exists on the ground for armored vehicles, but is useless for protecting aircraft on the ground. The last thing you want around thin-skinned aircraft is something that explodes!
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  To be clear, around the perimeter of the base. But also, you do realize these planes are members of a large class that exist entirely to be near things that explode?
  - greedo 1y ago
    Ummm, bombers have no desire to be around things that explode. They want to drop their bombs/missiles, and then get out of Dodge as quick as possible. The munitions on the ground are (at least on Western air bases) housed in very well protected vaults. Airplanes are so relatively fragile, that it's common for airbases and aircraft carriers to conduct FOD walks to make sure their runways are free of small pieces of metal debris that could be ingested by their engines. It doesn't take a lot to put an airplane out of commission. These aren't A-10s with titanium bathtubs protecting their pilots. They're large, slow, aluminum skinned craft that have limited maneuverability, and are the quintessential "bomb trucks" for Russia.
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      Yeah, I know. And you think this rules out putting anti-drone air-defense guns around air bases? Do you have an argument?
      - greedo 1y ago