Chinese infantry fighting vehicles

With greyzone stretching 15-20 km from the line of contact due to uav coverage, survivability has never been more important. Some sacrifices on mobility and attack capability may become ultimately unavoidable.

Tomboy said:

View attachment 164930View attachment 164931
Russian patent for "hairy" tank

Click to expand...

Like a MRAP with this system will probably perform better than APS equipped equivalent and cost a lot less. China can afford designs that limit compromise on performance as they are not under the same time constraints.

Maikeru said:

ZTZ99A on the closer truck with APS.

Instinctively dislike the 04B APS. Too many sensors = points of failure. Easily damaged by artillery fire.

Click to expand...

Its like the arena aps for the BMP-3M

tankphobia said:

With greyzone stretching 15-20 km from the line of contact due to uav coverage, survivability has never been more important. Some sacrifices on mobility and attack capability may become ultimately unavoidable.


Like a MRAP with this system will probably perform better than APS equipped equivalent and cost a lot less. China can afford designs that limit compromise on performance as they are not under the same time constraints.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should watch the 9.3 parade

Tomboy said:

View attachment 164930View attachment 164931
Russian patent for "hairy" tank

Click to expand...

These are very temporary solutions. They wouldn't work at all against proximity fused EFP warheads or even large caliber HEAT. These two are much less distance sensitive. The proximity fuse removes the possibility of the spikes messing up with the jet formation or the fuse too. In fact, to avoid the need for a prox fuse the drone could have a laser range range finder and use it to order the explosive to go off. These cope cages et al are only working because most of the drone munitions in Ukraine are recycled Soviet submunition, grenade and shoulder launched weapon warheads. Most of the rest are improvised. These spikes and cages aren't the future of anti-UAV solutions.

Those cages and brushes aren't meant to deal with ATGMs, various loitering munitions or even large, military grade attack drones. Because all those are far too expensive to be used in their millions. The main adversary is the average FPV drone, available in millions, precisely because it is a commercial grade, tiny and flimsy quadcopter. Which, of course, can't really carry a much bigger warhead than your average RPG warhead. That's why those cages and brushes make sense. Because they work against 90% of threats on the battlefield. The moment someone makes a larger and more bespoke version of quadcopter for warhead carriage - price of that will be so high that it will be produced in a few hundred thousands, not millions. So again, it won't be nearly as big of a threat.