>>64453619
You 100% are doing this shit through Google Translate. Your post makes no fucking sense and it has that obvious translated Slavic language candor to it.

>In this case it's irrelevant the use of PG-7, and it's irrelevant the idea of a mesh working as slat armor.
No it's not. You just don't understand what slat armor is. You already proved this earlier.
>Besides the fact they are adding cages to technicals because the intention ISN'T TO DEGRADE THE JET, THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS
No, because technicals aren't the only vehicles using slat armor. Degrading the jet is important no matter what. Fucking up the jet is genuinely beneficial for any armored vehicle.
>trying to avoid the jet is a lost cause.
No, it's 100% not. We have images from the conflict in Ukraine of it working just like that. There's even a picture of a Ukrainian MRAP having a PG-7 rocket right in front of its windshield, stuck in the slat armor.
>Reducing the damage and incendiary effect of the blast is the reason they keep adding those mesh/bird cages.
None of those matter against an armored vehicle.

>>64453630
No. Relevant standoff on a warhead the size of a PG-7, against roof / rear armor is measured in meters, 1-2m.
Only the biggest cope cages on T-72 / T-90 tanks are relevant for this.

>>529074320
Funny this is coming up now, I looked into that recently.