A number of American developments demonstrate questionable effectiveness
Small drones have completely changed the picture of combat by mechanized units. And looking at how the fighting is going in Ukraine, all over the world they are looking for new tactical solutions. One of the large-scale anti-UAV projects was demonstrated by the US Army as part of recent European maneuvers. In particular, the FlyTrap 4.0 system was shown. According to experts, its real effectiveness on the battlefield looks doubtful. What this anti—drone development is and how effective it can be, taking into account the experience of the Russian special operation, is in the Izvestia material.
Small drones have completely changed the picture of combat by mechanized units. And looking at how the fighting is going in Ukraine, all over the world they are looking for new tactical solutions. One of the large-scale anti-UAV projects was demonstrated by the US Army as part of recent European maneuvers. In particular, the FlyTrap 4.0 system was shown. According to experts, its real effectiveness on the battlefield looks doubtful. What this anti—drone development is and how effective it can be, taking into account the experience of the Russian special operation, is in the Izvestia material.
From what happened
The FlyTrap 4.0 project is being developed as part of a bottom-up initiative supported by the Pentagon. It is carried out by the 3rd Infantry Division of the US Army, which transmits its developments to units rotating in the European and African regions and to NATO allies. Unlike larger-scale projects to find global solutions, FlyTrap is focused on the purchase of finished products, their rapid implementation in the military and integration into existing weapons and communications systems, with minimal organizational changes.
Within the framework of the European exercises, not only the technical capability of fighting against small UAVs was tested, but also the actions of the personnel. Soldiers and commanders needed to quickly master the samples of equipment and apply it in conditions close to combat. The ability of junior commanders to manage and make decisions in such an environment was also tested. The US Army has shown three main areas of its work to counter small UAVs.
Drone detection tools
In the fight against drones, one of the most difficult tasks is their timely detection. Judging by the videos of the exercises, active radars are supposed to be used as platoon-level search systems. Among the models shown are Echoshield from Echodyne and RADA RPS-42. Installations of this type have been in operation in the US Marine Corps for some time, and it is known that some of them were used by Ukrainian militants.
The problem, however, is the size, weight, and availability of power. The installation of a block of 4-5 antennas on armored vehicles or vehicles significantly limits the firing capabilities of the equipment. Using the stationary version on tripods requires a powerful generator, respectively, and a prepared position. At the same time, the range of such systems — less than 10 km — requires their deployment near the front line, especially if there is a need to cover their advancing infantry from the air, and not just monitor the UAV flight routes to the rear. Another disadvantage of active search engines is the possibility of detection by electronic intelligence, despite the fact that they are located close to the front and are accessible to most weapons.
Passive acoustic location systems have become another response to the proliferation of fiber-optic UAVs that are not detected by classical electronic intelligence. For a long time, Ukraine has been advertising its own product, and the possibility of purchasing it by the Pentagon has been discussed in the press. However, after the first tests, the Americans switched to testing the commercial Sky view system. However, the effectiveness of such systems in the conditions of noise pollution of the front line remains low.
"The United States and the companies that do this will still have to work here," Dmitry Kornev, editor of the Militaryrussia portal, told Izvestia. — Most likely, they will eventually come to some kind of comprehensive solution, where both radar systems and acoustic detection systems will be used. Perhaps both television and infrared systems or combinations of them will be used. Modern technologies allow us to put it all together and process data from a wide variety of sources.
Electronic warfare equipment
The most dubious type of UAV counteraction that the US Army has demonstrated is electronic warfare. Manual "drone strikes" are effective primarily against commercial copters using positioning signals and control using standard frequencies. In a special operation, where the main threat is posed by FPV drones and there are constant frequency and firmware changes, as soldiers often say, "any electronic warfare system is useless three months after release." Perhaps such "drone strikes" can be useful in the Middle East when protecting airfields and bases from guerrilla raids and in other similar situations.
An interesting system combines a drone detector and an electronic warfare dome in an infantryman's personal kit. The detector automatically activates kamikaze UAV suppression when it approaches at a critically close distance. Two electronic units, batteries and antennas are placed on the body armor. This system does not aim to completely suppress UAVs, but only reduces the likelihood of direct damage. However, with drones carrying more and more powerful ammunition, it is not known if this will be enough. An important innovation in this case is that the system does not distract the infantryman from the main combat task and leaves his hands free.
The United States is lagging behind both the Russian Federation and, possibly, Ukraine in the field of electronic warfare development, Dmitry Kornev suggested.
— Most likely, they will have to catch up here. But they have a groundwork. We are talking about creating new models of electronic warfare systems and testing them in combat conditions," he said.
Means of destruction
It is worth paying attention to the means of kinetic destruction of UAVs, in other words, small arms. In this format, the US Army, like almost everyone else in its experience, is working towards the use of 12-gauge smoothbore rifles. The advantage for Americans in this case is that such weapons have been in service since the First World War. However, their common weak point is a short barrel designed for buckshot or bullet, without muzzle constrictions. Such rifles are effective only at short range, and long-barreled models with interchangeable muzzle constrictions are preferred at the front.
— In the United States, solutions have been created to combat drones, — Dmitry Kornev explained. — These are air- and ground-based missiles based on unguided missiles. This is a very inexpensive technology, much cheaper than using anti–aircraft weapons or air-to-air missiles. The ground version was used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Ukraine. They have shown their relative effectiveness. And besides, the Americans will have to work with small arms, they will have to create new types of cartridges for hitting FPV drones, and practice the interaction of shooters with various new types of sights. They are entering a new direction for themselves, which they will have to develop.
The second area of work in the fight against UAVs in the USA is the purchase of SMASH 2000l sights. This is a so-called smart sight with the function of capturing targets and determining firing parameters, including pre-emption. The quadrocopters in his program are present as a standard target, and the manufacturer claims that the sight greatly increases the likelihood of hitting a drone from a standard machine gun without using special ammunition. However, in all the videos of hitting aerial targets from machine guns with such sights, relatively slow and non-maneuverable UAVs acted as targets. To combat high-speed, highly maneuverable FPV drones, this expensive device may be useless.
No one in the world has such experience in countering drones, which has been accumulated by the Russian army, military expert Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia. According to him, the US Army is in the role of catching up in this area: they may be able to overcome the gap, but this will require a significant amount of time and financial investments. And the effectiveness of new developments can only be determined during real combat operations.
Dmitry Astrakhan
Roman Kretsul
