.
I wrote almost enthusiastically about active defences in the past (here and here).
I didn't do so because I trust them as a solution for defensive problems, but because I consider them as part of an important technological trend and as an important step forward for the defence in the offence-defence spiral.
Effective protection enables a tank (crew) to use the mobility even in the sights of the enemy - in order to wage a very mobile war on the tactical and operational level.
Offensive warfare is the decisive warfare - and requires good mobility for success.
On the other hand there are some problems with the active defences approach, even in the tank example. Look at this:
The dust is terrible for the sensors of active defences and camouflaging like this becomes quite difficult when many sensors and munitions of the active defence suite need to be unobstructed.
This photo concerns me - it points out that active defences could restrict advantageous behaviour.
Tank crews might choose to move slowly (to minimize the dust problems) to make full use of their ADS, thereby sacrificing offensive momentum and psychological effect.
They could also decide to avoid some terrains that would cause such problems with dust - in addition to the terrains that they avoid in order to avoid getting stuck.
They might also be enticed to do a sloppier job at camouflaging or would probably need a synthetic camouflage material that's tailored to the vehicle.
Maybe the mounting of the sensors on a mast as in the Arena system - as much as it seems to be a sniper target - wasn't so dumb after all.
Maybe we just need additional track skirts - expendable flexible skirts that almost scratch the ground - anyway.
.
I wrote almost enthusiastically about active defences in the past (here and here).
I didn't do so because I trust them as a solution for defensive problems, but because I consider them as part of an important technological trend and as an important step forward for the defence in the offence-defence spiral.
Effective protection enables a tank (crew) to use the mobility even in the sights of the enemy - in order to wage a very mobile war on the tactical and operational level.
Offensive warfare is the decisive warfare - and requires good mobility for success.
On the other hand there are some problems with the active defences approach, even in the tank example. Look at this:
The dust is terrible for the sensors of active defences and camouflaging like this becomes quite difficult when many sensors and munitions of the active defence suite need to be unobstructed.
This photo concerns me - it points out that active defences could restrict advantageous behaviour.
Tank crews might choose to move slowly (to minimize the dust problems) to make full use of their ADS, thereby sacrificing offensive momentum and psychological effect.
They could also decide to avoid some terrains that would cause such problems with dust - in addition to the terrains that they avoid in order to avoid getting stuck.
They might also be enticed to do a sloppier job at camouflaging or would probably need a synthetic camouflage material that's tailored to the vehicle.
Maybe the mounting of the sensors on a mast as in the Arena system - as much as it seems to be a sniper target - wasn't so dumb after all.
Maybe we just need additional track skirts - expendable flexible skirts that almost scratch the ground - anyway.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment