Weapons of the Future (part 1): Airburst

Drawing conclusions on the war of aggression in Ukraine and way forward

As it is clear by the 40th month of the war, initial technological development and rapid pace of progress and adaptation has stalled. At the moment Ukraine is focused on the organisational adaptations and the existing commercial model of supplying the army has limited itself.

What’s happened is that commercial suppliers are solely focused on mass production and competition between themselves. Consequently at this particular moment it is significantly suppressing the innovation. R&D requires significant investment of time and money, in the environment of hot competition and production capcity expansion it is not a priority.

The only “semi-active” direction of innovation is ground unmanned platforms.

However considering current state of warfare a further breakthough is requred (and will happen anyway) in order to complete a transformation of the warfare that would be a signal of a possible resolution of the war, as many times happened in the history.

To this day a doctrine like this is not implemented. Things are moving in that direction, developments are brewing, however a dominance of fixed wing high altitude multi-sensor drones is not the case. Things are progressing, however it continues to be a significant gap in Ukraine’s capabilities.

Moreover, things like “small flying radars” have not materialised.

There is no sense to speak more of that concept as all the participants are working on achieving “middle air” dominance. But it is not happening yet. Without it, and a concept of how to achieve it, a further progress is not possible.

However, there is quite a few other developments that require serious attention and investment. First of all as it seems it requires centralised investment and co-operation on inter-government level as the task is too big for any single manufacturer, athough not that difficult.

What is airburst?

There is quite a few implementations of airburst that have been in place already for decades, if not centuries.

However there is a limited number of technologies for that and those work with different effectiveness.

Let’s say there is 3 technologoes for that:

• time delay (timer)

• sensor

• remote control

When we speak about time delay example of an artillery fuze with manually adjustable detonator, that would make a timed burst.

When we speak about sensor it is more expensive and complicated technology, which is used for example in anti-air missiles. Or less complicated (and less precise) like in cluster shells.

Remote control is for example what is used in some of the one-way attack drones, including anti-air version.

Each technology has its limitations. Remote control is unreliable. Sensor is expensive and complex. Timer is unprecise in fluid battelfield situation.

However, already for some time exists a technology that improves timed airburst significantly. Here is example of how it works:

As you may see timer is programmed for every projectile “on the fly” and obviously connected to a range finder that defines the distance to target. The implementation of this technology can be quite miniature and currently fits projectiles of 30mm caliber and up. Such projectile is an ideal tool against such soft target as drone (or human for that matter). It flies a significant distance with a good precision and then produces a “cloud” of elements similar to shotgun shell pellet.

Why is airburst?

That allows efectively target such soft object with a lower initial shot precision or burst speed. Which in turn means less rounds expended, lower requirements to electromechanical part.

Moreover such solutions are quite flexible. Like for example adaptation for any already existing 40mm AGL:

Other implementations include 30mm, 35mm, 40mm autocannons.

Another flexibility of such a solution is possible usage against trenches, and over the other ground obstacles:

But also some manufacturers are developing specialised anti drone platforms based on AGL, which would quite benefit from the airbust capability:

Interesting part of the latter is that armoured turret with full ammo load weights about 240 kg (and unarmored would be probably down to 150-180 kg) . This is an important fact, if you consider that a very wide range of vehicles can use such a turret. Moreover, a low recoil of such a platfrom is significant benefit in comparison with 30, 35, or 40mm autocannons.

The downside is range, that would be approximatelly up to 500-800 metres. This is quite enough for engaging small one-way drones.

Or it may reach as much as 2 km in a ballistic mode. An example of how it may look in practice, in combination with a ground platform, you can see here:

Ballistic mode, means indirect fire, where projectile uses ballistic trajectory, similar to mortar bomb, combined with an aribust capability will allow to target a wide range of ground targets. It could be used for a quite powerful fire support of both defensive positions as well as engaging in offence.

Of course a key to such implementations is a massive production and usage.

Currently a single round of airbusrt munition may cost upwards of $200-$300. It requires massive co-operation, licensing, developing local production for bringing that price below $100. Where combined with a good optical (and close range radar) capacities, plus ballistic calculators, it will allow for a universal mass scale solution.

There are some other alternatives for protection of uparmored vehicles, like tanks and IFVs, but more on that later.

Concerning 30, 35, 40mm autocannons with an airburst. This is as well an important solution, as the range of impact may reach 3, 4, 7 km respectively.

This means that for example 35mm, and especially 40 mm solution allows to engage long range attack drones and fixed wing recon. Even guided bombs (and occasionally attack helicopters). The platfom though for such an autocannon should be suited for a 5 ton recoil, which normally means tracked or 6,8 wheeled armored platform.

But again, an attention must be paid to the fact that 30, 35mm solutions may be limited and will require developing 40mm cannon capacity. While there is no lack of existing 40mm cannons that could be upgraded to airbusrt capacity according to the above scheme, munition is not abundant at all.

This combination of means well suits current and emerging scenarios and needs to be developed at all cost at fastest possible pace.

Bear in mind that certain naval platforms can be suited with such a solution, like for example this (more of possible scanrios later):