Why hasn't this been used? Why a simple $50 antidrone isn't carried by soldiers? Cars are chased, doors and windows are passed, even tanks we've seen destroyed by a system of 50 years old.
>>65001041Because A. Russia doesn't have an APS system and B. America doesn't want to send APS equipped tanks to fight in someone else's war.
>>65001048>Russia doesn't have an APS systemDrozd, Arena, Afghanit. The problem is that APS is expensive and it's always going to be cheaper to use meat as decoys for other meat than to do anything to try and protect them.
>>65001041> 1. Why hasn't Trophy or similar been usedUnclear if it actually functions, the missile comes in very fast. Also a lot of chance for false positives and blowing up friendlies. tldr: Expensive, untested, probably doesn't perform as advertised.>Why a simple $50 antidrone isn't carried by soldiers?lol, like what? Look up how much an arduino, a camera, and 3 hobbyist toy servos cost.Also, what's your first language?
>>65001190Literally no APS system was proven effective in combat. If it was, we wouldn't have cope cages and one of them would be defending against drones. Don't turn on the "not fast enough, system is optimized for fast projectiles" - can definitely be down-tuned for drones, if it worked. That's not a stab at Russia either, NONE of the systems ever worked in combat.I am >>65001193
>>65001190>Drozd, Arena, AfghanitI'm pretty sure those were fake. Much like the T-14
>>65001193>>65001195Also, the modern threat is still APFSDS, that's 1500 m/s. That's 1/10th of a second to detect and react to a tank popping out from the next street over. At best, could be 1/100th of a second. If you think our tech is that fast for compute with all the camera -> brain -> hard-kill comm chain, you are delusional.>>65001201Shit comparison, USSR tech was real. T-14 is a Russia failure, SU-27 and a lot of the APS systems you listed are late USSR.
>>65001195If Russia used what was effective and not what was cheap, we wouldn't be seeing T-72 Urals and even T-55s on the battlefield.
>>65001193>>65001195Trophy is combat proven.
>>65001201Arena at least was real and effective against simple rpg type projectiles. It was never adopted in numbers because it costed like half a million usd a vehicle and was almost Hilariously dangerous to any nearby friendly that can’t survive getting sprayed with frag
>>65001235As I understand it, the system only worked if the incoming warhead crossed in front of the EFP launchers.
>>65001226Not against RPG-30, drones, or sabot. Baby anti RPG-7 system.>>65001235>>65001257There is no evidence USSR systems ever worked.
>>65001273Take it as proof of concept. A few good firmware updates and maybe a re-angled sensor should let Trophy shoot down drones.
>>65001041literally was used last week , has been in service over a decade with interceptions a decade ago
>>65001041Because military = stupid. We're using 30-50 year old tech currently that wont be upgraded for another 30-50 years.
>>65001502May we see these 30-50 year old FPVs and loitering munitions?
>>65001273There's a reason the only video of a drone attack we have gotten from hamas in 3 years was of one dropping a nade on a merkava, and it's not because FPV drones are unknown technology to 60IQ mudslimes.
>>65001193>>>65001041 (OP)>> 1. Why hasn't Trophy or similar been usedjust fly higher or carry more bombs
>>65001195>Literally no APS system was proven effective in combatTrophy actually worked against hamas RPGs.
>>65001602And when you think about it, an RPG should be a lot harder to hit than a drone.
>>65001507https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_DARRetard.
>>65001195The APS they deployed to Afghanistan did it's job... but then the Afghanis learned to wait for the soldiers to hide near the tanks and then lob RPGs at them triggering the APS and shredding the soldiers near the tank.
>>65003377>Ground launched anti-radiation missile
>>65003382never happened, I fought in that "war" and it was way gayer and less brutal than you think it was. If anything that interesting happened it would have been talked about nonstop for a year.
>>65001235>It was never adopted in numbers because it costed like half a million usd a vehicle This is the main reason. APS was always pricy, and the modern high-coverage, APFSDS-degrading ones like AMAP are even more expensive. It's why pretty much every Boxer or Lynx come out "fitted for, but not with" the respective modules.
>>65002267Not really.RPG go in a straight line and are definetly not a bird nor a flying garbage bag or a branch. The programming is straightforward.Drones can fly a foot off the ground in a zig zag line. Hard to program something to detect that against a cluttered background.
>>65003463it definitely wasn't armed doubt it was even serviceablealso it died to artillery iirc >>65003537iron fist degrades apfsds and it's not more expensive than trophyalso rafael hints that trophy can degrade apfsds but even as someone who maintained those systems i dont know that as a fact
>>65001041>Why a simple $50 antidrone isn't carried by soldiers?because APS explodes an anti-aircraft shell next to the fucking tank. what's the point of blowing up a drone only to perforate yourself with shrapnel even more effectively?APS works on tanks because the shrapnel won't pierce armor while a shaped charge will. infantry will die to both.
