A new tech which would indicates the ground vehicule a helicopter/jet/ground vehicule has been locking it and that a missile has been launched at it (spikes, LMURs, …). Then, the ground vehicule could manually smokes (maybe even automatically) towards where the missile is coming at it, so it could avoid being hit.
There is already an indicator when someone is pointing a laser at you, but it is not really the same, and you’re not sure if you’re locked and about to die. They already do it for air vehicles with MAW, why not adding it to ground vehicles as well ?
EDIT : for spike missiles, there is no laser indicator at all. It would be a huge help.
"Yes — in the real world there are systems on ground vehicles that do something broadly similar to what you’re suggesting (i.e., warning of incoming missiles and reacting with countermeasures), though they’re usually part of Active Protection Systems (APS) rather than standalone “missile-approach warning systems” like on aircraft.
Here’s how it works in real life:
🛡️ Active Protection Systems (APS) on Tanks & Armoured Vehicles
Modern tanks and armoured vehicles increasingly use active protection systems that detect incoming threats like rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), and then automatically respond to them before impact. These systems combine sensors and countermeasures:
Detection and Tracking:
APS use radars, optical/IR sensors, or a combination to detect & track incoming threats, including missiles. Detection is similar in idea to MAWS – sensing a threat before it hits.
Soft-kill countermeasures:
Some APS include smoke launchers or jammers that disrupt guidance systems of missiles, or obscure the vehicle’s position – conceptually close to what you described (automatically deploying smoke or “breaking lock”).
Hard-kill countermeasures:
Other APS intercept or destroy the incoming missile before it reaches the vehicle, either by firing a small interceptor or creating a blast to deflect it.
Example systems:
Trophy APS (Israel) – widely fielded on Merkava tanks and other AFVs. It uses radar to detect incoming ATGMs/RPGs and launches countermeasures to destroy them.
Iron Fist APS (Israel) – sensor suite (including radar/IR) detects threats and engages them to protect the vehicle.
AMAP-ADS (Germany/Sweden) – uses sensor-countermeasure modules around the vehicle to detect/neutralize threats within close range.
Arena APS (Russia) – uses Doppler radar to spot incoming missiles and fires defensive munitions to destroy them.
📡 Do These Systems Warn the Crew Like MAW?
Yes and no:
Some APS provide crew alerts when a missile or guided threat is detected. These alerts can cue the crew to take evasive action or launch smoke.
Unlike aircraft MAWS (which focus on warning about IR missiles so the pilot can take evasive action and deploy flares), ground APS often go further: they actively counter the threat, not just alert the crew.
Many systems also include smoke grenade launchers triggered automatically or by the crew when lasers are detected or a threat is incoming, especially in soft-kill APS suites."
So short answer : yes, the tech exists already within APS systems, both for automatic and manual smoke deployment, so yes the missile warning does exist.
Its called MWS, or Missile warning system in full, only the Merkava mk4 has it irl which is operational iirc, all it does is deploy smoke around maybe a few km’s from the missile, and another thing is, all tanks with LWR should have an auto smoke feature too, especially t90 series as they have a toggle switch to auto deploy smokes, and i’m pretty sure black night’s iron fist is the most effective to stopping missiles and getting the early warning.
Using AI to compile a list of sources for you to then look through is absolutely fine and often could find an article you otherwise wouldn’t but using it to write answers and then C&P them isn’t, that’s just being lazy.
Yes, and it has been tested recently here in Switzerland and we found that most of the Ai fails to give proper answer to a catalog of 300 questions. In a lot of cases, the Ai invented a plausible answer but was technically or historically false. The only one that reached “good” was “Claude”.
Bad way of putting it. It uses its training data (which is biased, as is all data regarding people) to create an answer.
It has a higher probability of being incorrect then you just finding a single source, even if its a second or third hand source. AI suffer from “hallucination”, we know this.
Congrats? Means absolutely nothing to me. I’ve written an entire university-level paper on how Generative AI affects the Gaming Industry, does not mean I’m an expert on AI or the Gaming Industry.