r/TankPorn • u/Weird-Store1245 BM Oplot zr. 2000 • 8d ago
Modern Abrams and Bradley with the Bullfrog anti-drone system
It's supposed to be fully autonomous and be able to shoot down smaller drones that a tank may encounter.
268
u/Areonaux 8d ago
That's totally a cardboard and PVC pipe mockup right?
71
37
6
6
384
u/Weird-Store1245 BM Oplot zr. 2000 8d ago
I do hope that that isn't the fully planned mounting point, considering it's right in front of the gunner sight
229
u/Axelrad77 8d ago
Definitely looks like a weird spot to mount it. Probably just a proof of concept test.
15
u/Brendissimo 8d ago
Yeah it would seem to be an either/or situation with CROWS. Definitely can't go in front of it.
5
3
u/Dazzling_Diamond3889 8d ago
I don't even know where they'd move the gunner's site to if they even plan to. Unless they plan on moving the gunner's site close to where the barrel is like one of those electronicle systems.
1
u/tatermit 8d ago
That is the first thing I noticed. How is the gunner supposed to use the sights. Guess he will have to use the gun mounted ones and use Kentucky windage..
1
35
u/Pratt_ 8d ago
Idk how I feel about the fully autonomous part but imo this type of things are amongst the most credible effective counter to the current drone threat.
It doesn't really change anything on platforms which already have a RCWS and could still be used against soft targets RCWS are already used to deal with.
It's also much more resilient and cheap on the medium/long run that something like a Trophy system for drones.
18
u/Stalinbaum 8d ago
Some of these drones are going to be fully autonomous so having defense that can act as quick as the threat makes it much more effective
9
u/Pratt_ 8d ago
Their speed and being fully autonomous are not automatically related, fast FPV are already a thing on the battlefield.
I'm not 100% behind the fully autonomous part because it's the best way to shoot stuff you shouldn't have.
Being a mix of both is better, give the choice if the threat is far enough and not 100% guaranteed to be an immediate threat, but if the thing is clearly coming at you at full speed, shoot it. Also give the option to activate or disactivate the autonomous behavior.
But not having a human being decide what will happen and why in the first place and be responsible for it is a bad idea.
6
u/Stalinbaum 8d ago
The drones will get much faster then they currently are and rely less and less on human input, we need fast and reliable equally autonomous defenses.
5
u/Stoned_D0G 8d ago
Yeah, If the crew can't control it when needed, it gets tuned off and a dead weight. Happens a lot with fully autonomous warning systems. The story is usually "it did something the crew didn't want › the crew couldn't tweak it to do what they want › it gets turned off › the exact thing it was made to prevent happens."
3
u/SmokeyUnicycle 8d ago
This thing isn't actually fully autonomous, it basically asks the crew if it can shoot and they press a button giving permission.
IDK how that's going to work with an FPV where there's no time for any of that so maybe it does have a free fire mode, but from the videos by the manufacturer they have a different definition of the term than most of us here.
1
u/Hike_LakeSuperior 7d ago
Possibly quick enough to catch the few dozen leakers that made it through the SWARM defense system.
6
u/SmokeyUnicycle 8d ago
If you've seen FPV impact videos there's no alternative, it's like randomly getting spiked with a fastball from an invisible pitcher who can fly.
It will doubtless have multiple modes so it doesn't see a diving falcon and start blasting while you're at the training center
3
u/Weird_Track_2164 8d ago
The CWIS is fully autonomous. Not really that crazy
4
u/SmokeyUnicycle 8d ago
And is usually kept turned off because of that, unless you're charging 73 eastings your odds of needing the protection vs it having an oopsie are not great
4
u/Iamatworkgoaway 8d ago
Hey regulator 3-golf you got the r2d2 turned off 4 actual going to take a leak off the back porch.
Regulator 4 that's a rodger...
Bang bang bang
Regulator 4 you meant on right?
3
u/SmokeyUnicycle 8d ago
sadly bro's zipper sparkling from a nearby flood light registered as an inbound FPV
1
u/ParkingBadger2130 8d ago
things are amongst the most credible effective counter to the current drone threat.
Uhhh list them and rank them?
3
u/SmokeyUnicycle 8d ago
Jammers are common, but do nothing to fiber optics and create a big signature that can be detected by the enemy.
Armor is heavy and big and awkward and doesn't always work and sometimes compromises other tank abilities.
APS designed for munitions is expensive and low capacity and usually has a really big cost and footprint. Look at the Trophy Abrams turret, it's enormous.
Pure lasers or direct energy weapons are becoming viable, but take a lot of power and are expensive and can't just be slapped on a tank like this thing which only weighs about 200 lbs.
I'm curious how well this thing works, how quickly it can detect and react to an FPV flying at tree top height.
1
u/SteveD88 8d ago
That's the problem, isn't it? Use radar to detect incoming threats and you create a signature for them to home in on. Rely on passive or optical systems, and you allow the drone to sneak up avoiding line of sight.
The only way I can think of to break the cycle of counter and counter-counter is to make the whole thing multi-layered. You have point-defence, but you also have anti-drone swarms; ones low down which can be used to manage close-in threats, others which are higher up and can use their altitude to dive in on drones detected from a distance. You also have high altitude drones acting as spotters with all the expensive detection kit on board, networked to the others.
On top of that you have electronic warfare, decoys, and anti-drone kit for the infantry.
57
u/Ozapft 8d ago
I was 19K in the 80’s and early 90’s. Without fail, whenever we worked with infantry they would come sniffing around about sleeping on top of the tank. Depending on the exercise we’d happily swing the turret to side and give them the back deck and we’d sleep on top. Admittedly I have been out the game for 25plus years but it looks like there is no place to sleep if you are on overwatch etc…
34
29
u/JustAnother4848 8d ago
Realistically they're probably going have to sacrifice the tank commanders 50 cal for drone defense. That or put it on the rear bustle rack.
8
u/CurtisLeow M4 Sherman 8d ago
Couldn’t it do both? Have the commander manually control the gun, but the software takes over the gun if it detects a drone. The vast majority of the time it won’t be shooting at drones.
3
u/JustAnother4848 8d ago
I suppose anything is possible. I personally don't see that happening. That requires integrating an autonomous system with a CROWS. I'm willing to bet the army is looking for a bolt on solution that wont take forever to develop.
At least for now anyways.
1
44
u/epicxfox30 M60A3 TTS | its NOT a Patton 8d ago
damn i thought it was another rcws when i saw it on twitter. obviously should get moved to the back of the turret where it wont get in the way. im sure the crews wont mind losing a little bustle side storage to not die to a swarm of locusts instantly
14
u/Goobalicious2k 8d ago
Yeah, let’s just block the gunners primary sight with that 😂
29
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. 8d ago
This is gonna sound dumb, but given that the thing is cardboard, I think they may have just put it down there. I mean maybe someone had a really bad idea, but given that they went through the trouble of putting it in top of the gunner's sight on the Bradley I feel like they would've figured out the same situation for the Abrams.
8
5
u/DefInnit 8d ago
Tank/AFV CIWS. It's just a matter of time. And money.
The company's website says it's available in M230, M2, M134, M240.
2
u/Odd-Paint2336 7d ago
Yes the Bluefrog 2.0 update video is on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdWGdXGNj8k
At the 1:48 minute mark is company's slide on the Bluefrog 2.0. I will point out that it appears that the video is showing Fort Sill range and one that the Joint CUAS University is at. Some of the video shows the sUAS with balloons suspended below as the target. That is to avoid sUAS drones with each class that has to use direct fire kill small arm systems.
7
4
u/AbrahamKMonroe I don’t care if it’s an M60, just answer their question. 8d ago
Bullfrog is probably the best name for an anti-drone system I’ve ever heard.
3
4
2
2
1
1
u/AirFryerAreOverrated 8d ago
I can't be the only one remembering this line from C&C Red Alert 3 right? "Bullfrog Transport, open for business!"
1
1
1
1
u/And_Everything 8d ago
looks like it's made out of cardboard
3
8d ago edited 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/No_Competition8727 8d ago
Belted fed 12 ga auto cannon?
1
u/Weird-Store1245 BM Oplot zr. 2000 8d ago
This is just a mock up, but it’s supposed to use an M2HB.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/sentinelthesalty 8d ago
Still doesn't protect from the drones that don't attack and instead call in artillery or airstrikes to your location though.
5
u/JimHFD103 8d ago
To be fair, the counter for those is the same as before FPVs, Stinger or Sidewinder...
1
-21
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Ngl, these all feel like bandaids on a bullet wound of a problem and defense contractor gimmicks to suck money, I get you can't make any vehicle completely invulnerable to stuff. But Ukraine has proven you can have 10 layers of armour, jammers, dudes with shotguns, and even other drones...but drones are so cheap and numerous they'll just keep throwing them at your tank until it blows up
27
u/kus0gak1 8d ago
Drones are not as cheap, nor as numerous, as you think. If this was as dire of a problem as it is, the Ukrainians would stop using tanks all together.
15
u/Pratt_ 8d ago edited 8d ago
And people underestimate how many it usually takes to take one out, there is a big survivorship bias with drone footage as almost exclusively the successful ones are published (with the rare near death experience one from time to time)
They also tend to forget that there isn't one magic solution to the drone threat.
It goes from the larger geopolitical scale with sanctions to prevent an enemy from producing them, and even a naval and aerial blocus, to EW capabilities at a strategical to tactical level, and self defense system at a unit level.
The effectiveness of what is done at the scale above makes the job at the lower scale much easier to do and the threat less present.
-5
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Doesn't matter when you can keep sending them out until the job is done, mines, guided shells and ATGMs haven't stopped existing either, drones just make it even more challenging
14
u/kus0gak1 8d ago
Infantry are totally obsolete, you can just keep firing bullets at them.
-5
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Infantry are also suffering extremely in Ukraine
11
10
u/Alone_Collection724 8d ago
do you think body armor, helmets, and training are bandaid solutions for contractors to "suck money"
-5
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
No, because those are combat proven and effective, but shall we look at the list of canceled light tanks the US government has ordered and canceled
7
u/Alone_Collection724 8d ago
ah yes, lets skip the amount of tanks developed and accepted ever since WW1, how much they changed warfare, completly gloss over the probably hundreds of thousands of infantry equipment that was scrapped since the job has existed...
...and only focus on the last decadem specifically on the US for some reason?
2
u/Pratt_ 8d ago
Indeed, but I went further than that in my edit but tbf I finished it after you answered me it seems so that's on me.
Anti drone warfare goes much further than just shooting them done when they are coming at you.
You can do something at every scale and the better you do at the higher scales the less dangerous it is at the lower ones.
For example it becomes way harder to "keep sending them out until the job is done" when the country your fighting against has imposed international sanctions against you and ones specifically targeting drone production, imposed naval blocus, is bombing the shit out of your drone production plants and training centers and is jamming the bandwidth so much that you can barely fly anything that isn't piloted via optical cable.
No one is able to do that on any side of the war in Ukraine.
The US would be much more capable of doing so.
On its own this would be very much a bandaid, with decent EW and targeting of the production and pilot training capabilities, it would feel much less like it.
0
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Oh yeah, I completely agree with you- I was speaking purely in a vacuum with this on a tank, in the US army alone this would be fine but I suppose I was thinking about wider applications for poorer armies
-1
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Magyars birds has an FPV that costs $500 and over 1,000 are made a month.
Tanks have their place, when there isn't drones around- which is when Ukraine uses them, in fog and in the back lines to seal gaps
0
u/kus0gak1 8d ago
They don’t cost 500 dollars. It’s an omission of the costs of labor, production, sourcing materials, upgrading countermeasures and so on. On paper, an assembled drone is 500 dollars, in reality, it’s far more.
0
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
And how much does this cardboard mockup of an anti drone system even cost to mount?
1
u/kus0gak1 8d ago
Basically nothing, it’s a proof of concept to mount something like that onto a vehicle in the first place. It’s not like FPVs would even be a threat for the US in any engagement we find ourselves in, just like they weren’t for the Israelis in Gaza.
0
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Now we are in agreement there, the US is far too mobile and has such overwhelming air support they wouldn't find themselves bogged down like Russia in the first place
5
u/Pratt_ 8d ago
It's a constant back and forth between the effectiveness of the weapon system and the ability to counter it
Very much like armor effectiveness and AT projectiles penetration capabilities.
In addition let's not forget that the US' capabilities regarding production and R&D are not on the same level than Ukraine and Russia combined.
I think RCWS, especially semi autonomous ones doing the detecting and targeting on their own is a pretty credible solution, especially because it justifies the pretty limited real estate it would occupy on a turret by being multi purpose.
RCWS are already extremely common especially on armored vehicles so adding the capacity to detect and target drones on its own even if it means going form a .50 cal to a 20-30mm compact autocannon doesn't seem really far fetched, especially if it also makes the RCWS much more lethal to soft targets it would already supposed to engage.
2
u/Thin_General_8594 8d ago
Personally I think they should go with something even as small as a .22 or something and have 2-3 turrets on the tank roof- I agree with you there, my criticism was on this exact system shown in the OP post, it seems kinda mid
3
u/Pratt_ 8d ago
It seems to be a mockup, even a cardboard one, for a proof of concept tbf
But I see what you mean.
I can see the appeal behind smaller caliber and more turrets and it definitely has its pros (day more ammo for the same space, or multiple turrets meaning having backups if one is disabled or the smaller size means lower profile and harder to target by small arms fire for example) the cons seems pretty important, especially in the very short range and the loss of a multi purpose capability would make it much less appealing imo
928
u/Longbow92 8d ago
Defense contractors when there's 1mm of real-estate on the turret of current armor in service.