How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

The primary issue with APS is not detectability, the system is already on a large hot vehicle made of metal.  The primary issue is that there are too many ways to counter it with cheaper technologies.  First method is to simply do multiple attacks at one and overwhelm the system. With ATGMs that was much harder, with FPVs not so much. Second is to use submunitions on terminal attack, or EFP for standoff.  Then there is good old artillery, no APS is going to stop an artillery shell - let alone a SMART type round. And then there is the fact one needs APS on everything, both fighting vehicles and logistics.

APS is likely going to be one element of a suite of defences but in the end I have significant doubts that it will be able to re-establish battlefield symmetry.  The major problem with our current mech based conventional tactical system is that it is under conditions where the enemy can be wrong many times (cheap many) and we can only be wrong few (expensive few).  This extends beyond land warfare and into the air and sea as well.

[hcrof]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The primary issue with APS is not detectability, the system is already on a large hot vehicle made of metal.  The primary issue is that there are too many ways to counter it with cheaper technologies.  First method is to simply do multiple attacks at one and overwhelm the system. With ATGMs that was much harder, with FPVs not so much. Second is to use submunitions on terminal attack, or EFP for standoff.  Then there is good old artillery, no APS is going to stop an artillery shell - let alone a SMART type round. And then there is the fact one needs APS on everything, both fighting vehicles and logistics.

APS is likely going to be one element of a suite of defences but in the end I have significant doubts that it will be able to re-establish battlefield symmetry.  The major problem with our current mech based conventional tactical system is that it is under conditions where the enemy can be wrong many times (cheap many) and we can only be wrong few (expensive few).  This extends beyond land warfare and into the air and sea as well.

To add to this, APS takes a lot of space and weight to a vehicle, as well as costing a lot. And as discussed the protection is not comprehensive. 

This might be worth it if you are protecting a key asset but trying to equip every vehicle in the fleet is not a good use of resources IMO. 

I lean towards having more, cheaper platforms with ERA on all surfaces to stop small HEAT rounds. If you take a big hit from an ATGM I would rely on redundancy so the vehicle can self-extract. One advantage of hybrid electric vehicles which I think can be exploited (other than low noise, heat and fuel consumption) is the fact that it is redundant. Lose the engine and your batteries can get you out of there, lose one motor and the motors on other wheels still work etc. similarly, an advantage of modular vehicles is compartmentalisation: a fire in one compartment will not necessarily destroy the vehicle. 

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, hcrof said:

To add to this, APS takes a lot of space and weight to a vehicle, as well as costing a lot. And as discussed the protection is not comprehensive. 

This might be worth it if you are protecting a key asset but trying to equip every vehicle in the fleet is not a good use of resources IMO. 

I lean towards having more, cheaper platforms with ERA on all surfaces to stop small HEAT rounds. If you take a big hit from an ATGM I would rely on redundancy so the vehicle can self-extract. One advantage of hybrid electric vehicles which I think can be exploited (other than low noise, heat and fuel consumption) is the fact that it is redundant. Lose the engine and your batteries can get you out of there, lose one motor and the motors on other wheels still work etc. similarly, an advantage of modular vehicles is compartmentalisation: a fire in one compartment will not necessarily destroy the vehicle. 

A hybrid electric version of this with ERA and a defensive UAS CAP would be a start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206

At 20k euros apiece - 

https://mortarinvestments.eu/catalog/item/bv-206-hagglunds?

And 11k produced.

Edit: Or even closer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BvS_10

 

Edited May 13 by The_Capt

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

The overwhelming majority of ATGMs do not perform high diving attacks which would necessitate radars pointed skywards.

Unfortunately, pretty much all future munitions, especially the really cheap ones do in fact perform diving attacks. Actually, they can attack from any direction they choose, at any speed they choose.

What if the APS doesn’t handle a target going slower than 20mph? Every single small drone will be programmed to reduce speed on final approach.

2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

The big issue I'd really point out here is your assumption that the APS will be transmitting 24/7, 365 days a year. Why would it?

Based on what we are seeing in Ukraine, you will need APS turned on if you are within 20km of the front line. Otherwise, what’s even the point of having it in the first place?

[Anthony P.]

44 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Unfortunately, pretty much all future munitions, especially the really cheap ones do in fact perform diving attacks.

Such as?

Currently, it's pretty much the Javelin which does that, and that's anything but cheap. FPV drones certainly don't; they're commercial off the shelf things. Crash dive those straight down and they'll lose control.

There's very likely a bunch of "in coming years" weapons around which will... but AESA radars in APS both already exist and are already fielded, so no issue pointing those skyward.

 

Quote

What if the APS doesn’t handle a target going slower than 20mph? Every single small drone will be programmed to reduce speed on final approach.

What if the ATGMs all fail?

Why would that be an issue? Only rather outdated APSs rely on doppler radar, so low speeds are unlikely to be a problem.

 

Quote

Based on what we are seeing in Ukraine, you will need APS turned on if you are within 20km of the front line. Otherwise, what’s even the point of having it in the first place?

What we are seeing from Ukraine is highly curated propaganda footage.

Most personnel and vehicles are not engaged in combat at any given time. Even a tank on the frontline might perhaps dig a hole to park in and cover itself with thermal netting and a cope cage (in hindsight, those might not have been as dumb as we judged them to be (assuming that they weren't actually designed with ATGMs as opposed to FPV drones in mind)). Even discounting jamming and active air defences adapted to FPV drones and other loitering munitions in mind, that'd already be a very different target to hit compared to a tank out in an open field.

If we're to be very realistic here, the AFVs we do see being destroyed in these videos are almost always ones moving around in open terrain at daytime. That may be an indication that they're already quite difficult to target with drones when parked up in defensive positions.

[hcrof]

4 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Such as?

Currently, it's pretty much the Javelin which does that, and that's anything but cheap. FPV drones certainly don't; they're commercial off the shelf things. Crash dive those straight down and they'll lose control.

There's very likely a bunch of "in coming years" weapons around which will... but AESA radars in APS both already exist and are already fielded, so no issue pointing those skyward.

 

What if the ATGMs all fail?

Why would that be an issue? Only rather outdated APSs rely on doppler radar, so low speeds are unlikely to be a problem.

 

What we are seeing from Ukraine is highly curated propaganda footage.

Most personnel and vehicles are not engaged in combat at any given time. Even a tank on the frontline might perhaps dig a hole to park in and cover itself with thermal netting and a cope cage (in hindsight, those might not have been as dumb as we judged them to be (assuming that they weren't actually designed with ATGMs as opposed to FPV drones in mind)). Even discounting jamming and active air defences adapted to FPV drones and other loitering munitions in mind, that'd already be a very different target to hit compared to a tank out in an open field.

If we're to be very realistic here, the AFVs we do see being destroyed in these videos are almost always ones moving around in open terrain at daytime. That may be an indication that they're already quite difficult to target with drones when parked up in defensive positions.

Artillery delivered munitions, the Chinese javelin copy, NLAW, the new TOW and any copies the Chinese might make, drone drops and fpv drones can all easily do top attack and that is just the stuff off the top of my head. In fact I see line of sight attacks being the minority of attacks in the future. 

As for very slow, if you don't have a lower limit on speed for your APS it will fire at birds and oncoming street signs. But dropped munitions and FPV drones can come in slower than a bird. So you add more bells and whistles to try and reduce the false positive rate and your cost and processing power just went up again. 

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

If we're to be very realistic here, the AFVs we do see being destroyed in these videos are almost always ones moving around in open terrain at daytime. That may be an indication that they're already quite difficult to target with drones when parked up in defensive positions.

We've seen plenty of vehicles parked in thick forests get destroyed by artillery spotted by UAS.  APS doesn't protect against that sort of threat at all.

Aside from this, we have seen some amount of successful attacks on vehicles parked under cover.  Drones can fly between trees in some cases.  Not too long ago we saw strikes on Russian vehicles that were inside a warehouse.  We've also seen plenty of drones flying into windows, including the slow stalking ones of Magyar taking out Russian ISR posts along the Dnepr.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1789876549841310195

 

The situation regarding the Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region at 5:00 a.m. on May 13

During the day, the enemy started fighting in the border villages of Hlyboke and Staritsa in the Kharkiv direction. But it was not possible to completely occupy the villages, infantry contact battles are being fought for them. The enemy is trying to advance to the village of Liptsi, but was unable to reach the village.

In the direction of Vovchansk, the enemy entered the outskirts of Vovchansk, the outer streets and the Vovchansk meat processing plant. But the city remains almost completely under our control, the enemy was not allowed to advance deep. Near Vovchansk, our artillery and drones work effectively against the infantry, and the enemy's losses are significant. I am here, so I see the situation with my own eyes. Defenses are being strengthened in the city. The enemy is active, groups of infantry are trying to break through our battle formations in different areas.

On May 12, the Russians attacked for the first time near Vovchansk with several tanks with minesweepers, but the attack was repulsed. On May 12, the Russians tried to advance in almost all directions, but everywhere they met the resistance of the Ukrainian troops, and now the enemy is forced to conduct assaults.

Faced with the consolidation of our battle formations, and with the need to attack strongholds that hinder further offensives, the enemy lost the opportunity to maneuver. And now the losses of the Russians began to increase sharply.
On the first day of the offensive, due to certain problems, the command of OTU "Kharkiv" was changed. The new commander is a person with experience and competence. Control and awareness are improving, but not as quickly as we would like. Management and organization at the highest level is our primary and key concern.

In terms of ammunition: our troops are equipped with artillery shells. By people: there are problems with the low complexity of the parts, but the enemy does not have a multiple advantage. Regarding the fortifications: they were built in the Kharkiv direction, but the enemy did not reach these lines. For some reason, the defensive lines are not tied to tactically advantageous heights, the main battles continue where the positions are not equipped, and it is necessary to dig in now. That is why there is a misunderstanding in the troops that there are no fortifications exactly where they are needed, and why it is necessary to bury ourselves in the landings again.

In the direction of Vovchansk - the city is not prepared for defense. There are no details yet, but it is not a secret for the enemy, since local residents are not displaced, and enemy drones often make overflights.

Regarding the actions of our troops: there are experienced commanders and units, the organization of defense, the definition of the front line, interaction is emerging and improving. The chaos on the broad front is not completely overcome, but the situation is improving.

The situation remains difficult, the Russian troops have the initiative due to their overall numerical superiority, pre-planned actions on a wide front, but there are currently no prerequisites for a breakthrough on our front.

Prediction of the enemy's actions for the day: the Russians will try to advance further into the area of residential development in Vovchansk, advance in the direction of Staritsa, and cling to the buildings of Lyptsiv and Ternovoi.

The battle continues, the enemy continues to act actively, so the situation is very tense.

All units in the direction are in dire need of drones.

 

My take on this is... Ukraine was ready for a Russian attack, but not well prepared for it.  Defensive lines exist, but not this far forward as command did not anticipate a limited incursion when the defensive lines were laid out.  Couple this with the usual shock of the opening phase of a pre-planned attack by a superior force, and it's not surprising that the Russians have gained ground.  Possible command mismanagement on the Ukrainian side may have contributed to the chaos and is why the commander was swapped out.

These early reports seem to indicate the fighting has shifted into a more familiar defensive character where advances are slow and limited compared to the rapid advances of the last few days.  Let's hope so.

Steve

[danfrodo]

8 hours ago, Offshoot said:

Reporting from Ukraine has a narrative on the Kharkiv offensive ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_mMG9Bdwk ). According to him, it is under the command of General Aleksandr Lapin (who lost at Lyman) and Ukrainian intelligence knew about the build up, the numbers of Russian troops involved (50,000) and roughly when the Russians were going to start. Given the number of Russians is way too small to achieve possible objectives of taking Kharkiv or Vovchansk, his conclusion is that the main purpose is to try and draw Ukrainians away from other areas to make gains there easier, but it hasn't worked so far. Apparently there are also heavy fortifications around Kharkiv and east so it's possible the Ukrainians were prepared to yield ground. The Russians also have not just strolled in unopposed but have suffered losses there.

 

I saw same video, was more hopeful than some other reports, but we just don't know much yet.  I am hoping that UKR purposely set their defenses back from the border to avoid easy artillery & even mortar attacks.  Hopefully UKR has some nasty kill zones planned out for the advancing Putinites.  They may have been willing to cede some terrain to avoid losses and are not admitting this because it would be rather bad PR. 

Or they are getting whupped.  We just don't know.  

[holoween]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

What if the APS doesn’t handle a target going slower than 20mph? Every single small drone will be programmed to reduce speed on final approach.

Yes going slow is the answer for drones against aps unless..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4d2d77RtfI

[kimbosbread]

14 minutes ago, holoween said:

Yes going slow is the answer for drones against aps unless..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4d2d77RtfI

I want to watch that video with the drones coming in not as a giant bunch. I’d pay money to watch several Ukranian drone operators vs a few of these Rheinmetall units, and I know who I’d bet money on.

[panzermartin]

Of course we must all have noticed the very long and dense forest area that almost starts from russian borders and enters the city of Kharkiv almost serving like a portal. 

Dismounted infantry can theoretically advance in numbers through there unnoticed and protected from drones at least. But at the same time they have very poor visibility of what lies ahead of them. 

Obviously Ukrainians have thought some solutions to detect and block advances I guess. 

Edited May 13 by panzermartin

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, holoween said:

Yes going slow is the answer for drones against aps unless..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4d2d77RtfI

Talk about your highly curated propaganda (insert roll eyes).  UAS flying in line formation high in the sky right across on open range.  These are not even close to the conditions we can see in RL.  This sort of thing is all about selling.

[Eddy]

Another Su25 shot down apparently. Third one reported in 9 days.

https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.bsky.social/post/3ksez53ytqc24

Quote

The Ukrainian General Staff reports that another Su-25 was shot down in the Donetsk region. This is the 3rd claimed downing of a Russian fighter jet in recent weeks.

https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/792130783100002

 

[Battlefront.com]

Every time I see that video I think of something like the British having great success against the colonial militia on the Battle Green in Lexington.  "See, our well practiced musket line tactics can crush anything!".  Then the colonists picked them off as they marched to and from Concord along narrow, wooded roads where the British tactics didn't work at all.  If YouTube had been around back then I'm sure the British would show the first part of the battle that they won and not shown how in the end they were operationally defeated.

Steve

[holoween]

36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Talk about your highly curated propaganda (insert roll eyes).  UAS flying in line formation high in the sky right across on open range.  These are not even close to the conditions we can see in RL.  This sort of thing is all about selling.

1. there are limitations on what you can do on a peacetime range in germany.

2. the primary attack method for fpv drones is diving in from the rear https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1blpv80/collection_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/18oeo0r/a_compilation_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/

not a whole lot of terrain masking there.

3. even if this was the absolute max extend of this upgrade its still infinitely better then the current best in ukraine atm which is desperate riflefire.

4. you keep going on about automation and how its going to transform the battlefield. and when you see a demo of a remote controlled turret automatically engaging drones with the gunner only really giving the go ahead for the weapons to engage you turn around and dismiss it. way to stay consistent.

5. this is an upgraded puma turret so not exactly something specifically dedicated against drones.

[kimbosbread]

5 minutes ago, holoween said:

1. there are limitations on what you can do on a peacetime range in germany.

So yeah, why not just have paper targets and some schnitzel and riesling and be done with it. This is a convincing sales pitch to absolutely nobody. Some duck hunters could do about the same in the same time.

5 minutes ago, holoween said:

2. the primary attack method for fpv drones is diving in from the rear.

And dropping grenades and whatnot from the top.

8 minutes ago, holoween said:

4. you keep going on about automation and how its going to transform the battlefield. and when you see a demo of a remote controlled turret automatically engaging drones with the gunner only really giving the go ahead for the weapons to engage you turn around and dismiss it. way to stay consistent.

This is a ****ty demo. It’s worse than the homebuilt RC turrets people stuck paintballs and airsoft guns to 10-20 years ago that were computer-vision driven. Those things could at least track fast moving targets.

[hcrof]

9 minutes ago, holoween said:

1. there are limitations on what you can do on a peacetime range in germany.

2. the primary attack method for fpv drones is diving in from the rear https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1blpv80/collection_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/18oeo0r/a_compilation_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/

not a whole lot of terrain masking there.

3. even if this was the absolute max extend of this upgrade its still infinitely better then the current best in ukraine atm which is desperate riflefire.

4. you keep going on about automation and how its going to transform the battlefield. and when you see a demo of a remote controlled turret automatically engaging drones with the gunner only really giving the go ahead for the weapons to engage you turn around and dismiss it. way to stay consistent.

5. this is an upgraded puma turret so not exactly something specifically dedicated against drones.

I actually think this is a good system - not perfect but easily integrated into existing vehicles. I also wonder how easy it would be to spot and engage ATGMs - a javelin travels quite high so would be easier to spot than a normal atgm that may be lost in background clutter. I think a computer vision system could watch for a launch signature than automatically fire at the missile and/or the launcher. 

[The_Capt]

28 minutes ago, holoween said:

1. there are limitations on what you can do on a peacetime range in germany.

2. the primary attack method for fpv drones is diving in from the rear https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1blpv80/collection_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/18oeo0r/a_compilation_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/

not a whole lot of terrain masking there.

3. even if this was the absolute max extend of this upgrade its still infinitely better then the current best in ukraine atm which is desperate riflefire.

4. you keep going on about automation and how its going to transform the battlefield. and when you see a demo of a remote controlled turret automatically engaging drones with the gunner only really giving the go ahead for the weapons to engage you turn around and dismiss it. way to stay consistent.

5. this is an upgraded puma turret so not exactly something specifically dedicated against drones.

 It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.

The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  

As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.

Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.

The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  

As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.

Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

I am with the captain on this.  Until someone can neutralize drones there's just too much risk in expensive, easy to target stuff.  

[poesel]

34 minutes ago, hcrof said:

I actually think this is a good system - not perfect but easily integrated into existing vehicles.

Yeah, agree. I don't understand the hate here. Upgrading an existing system to fight an additional threat is quite economic, even if it is not perfect. If they could add that system to the Bradley, the Ukrainians would be pretty happy.

There's an accompanying article to the video here https://www.hartpunkt.de/drohnenabwehr-aller-truppen-rheinmetall-mit-neuem-ansatz/ (in German). According to it, the Bundeswehr has bought an undisclosed number of these systems.

It also has this tidbit of information about the use of radar:
"According to Michelson, the use of an active radar is necessary - despite its own radiation - because the data quality of one's own passive sensors is usually not sufficient for combat with a high probability of success. It can be assumed that drones will have fewer signatures in the future and will therefore be more difficult to detect passively."

 

 

[hcrof]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  

Agreed - we need more than a controlled demo to know this is mature tech. Also agreed that it can get overwhelmed - the drone CAP should be the first line of defense and the turret should catch anything that makes it through. They key is to share information between the drone CAP swarm and the vehicle to make sure they cooperate efficiently (and you don't shoot your own drones)

[holoween]

30 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

So yeah, why not just have paper targets and some schnitzel and riesling and be done with it. This is a convincing sales pitch to absolutely nobody. Some duck hunters could do about the same in the same time.

3 groups of drones at 370m in 5s. id like to meet the duck hunters who can do that.

 

33 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

And dropping grenades and whatnot from the top.

yes which supports my point that a target demo against slow and high flying targets isnt entirely invalid.

33 minutes ago, hcrof said:

I actually think this is a good system - not perfect but easily integrated into existing vehicles. I also wonder how easy it would be to spot and engage ATGMs - a javelin travels quite high so would be easier to spot than a normal atgm that may be lost in background clutter. I think a computer vision system could watch for a launch signature than automatically fire at the missile and/or the launcher. 

Id be very surprised if its even remotely at that level. But adding an aps and sensor fusing it with the turret it might be possible.

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.

the m2 needs a direct hit. the 30mm airburst needs to get just within a few meters and has far more range. thats orders of magnitude more effectiveness.

 

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution. 

You dont just have a single vehicle so having a platoon covering different sectors makes this a lot more managable. also integration of the skyranger 30 to feed target data and manage the overall engagement is beig worked on aswell

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.

Sure that will probably work but doesnt seem to be the only possible solution to the problem.

 

3 minutes ago, poesel said:

There's an accompanying article to the video here https://www.hartpunkt.de/drohnenabwehr-aller-truppen-rheinmetall-mit-neuem-ansatz/ (in German). According to it, the Bundeswehr has bought an undisclosed number of these systems.

https://www.hartpunkt.de/drohnenabwehr-kit-fuer-puma-turm-ermoeglicht-bekaempfung-von-drohnenschwaermen/

actually this article but the one you linked also adds to it

[Tenses]

I think that ridiculing the additional ability, which Boxer has in self defense against drones is baseless. On modern battlefield everything like this is useful.

As for general counter we should drop the thinking that something essentialy changed in a way, which cancels all previous solutions. UAVs are essentialy air force, but the one which managed to get very low, very close and very small. To counter air threat we need both our own fighter/interceptor UAVs and ground point/area defence. 30mm Boxer turret is very capable because unlike smaller and cheaper solutions like 50 cal., which would be perfect for this situation, it can reach farther and shoot down all kinds of aerial targets, also very tough. It should be supplemented by at least 10, if not 100 times more 50 cal. auto turrets to turn the tide of cost effectiveness but all is needed and all should be used, if necessary. 

There is currently discussion relating to navy war against drones on Red Sea and general conclusion is that no one will be waiting for the drone to come in the range of 2km to kill it with cheap point defense. All assets should be used and cheaper solutions should be implemented on the go.

I would much more take Boxer with anti drone capability than with no such option. It can do well with so many threats that it makes this kind of platforms very versatile.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, holoween said:

the m2 needs a direct hit. the 30mm airburst needs to get just within a few meters and has far more range. thats orders of magnitude more effectiveness.

FFS have a meeting fellas, gimme an exploding 50 cal round.  Build in a miniature proximity fuse...it is 2024.  30mm is a big slow gun hitting many fast moving little bastards.  Better yet, a minigun that shoots .22 cal rounds and make a land warfare version of a CWIS.  Small enough you could mount 2 or 3 on a Boxer.

4 minutes ago, holoween said:

You dont just have a single vehicle so having a platoon covering different sectors makes this a lot more managable. also integration of the skyranger 30 to feed target data and manage the overall engagement is beig worked on aswell

I suspected as much.  But now we have to opposing combined arms system issue.  As I noted (several times) this is not all about FPVs/UAS.  That Boxer platoon has ISR picking it up kms out, artillery firing increasingly precision rounds, ATGMs every color of the death rainbow, UAS/FPVs, mines that may have legs and be delivered by UAS and good old fashion direct fires.

The problem for the platoon is that once it solves one problem is creates vulnerabilities elsewhere.  Blasting away at the sky with a 30mm chain gun may keep the FPVs at bay but you can count on being picked up by ISR and then lit up by those other systems.

There is no future for "UAS handled = happy manoeuvre days for AFVs".  We need an overhaul here that creates a counter system to the problem system we are facing.