3 ms·

Aren’t you exaggerating the cost difference? I’m pretty sure a $10,000 drone can hunt down a $12 drone, and do it more than once. To make it work you need size

by DenisM 9y ago

Aren’t you exaggerating the cost difference? I’m pretty sure a $10,000 drone can hunt down a $12 drone, and do it more than once. To make it work you need size, speed, radar / sonar, a computer, and a weapon for that sort of drone. Civilian DSLR-carrying drones are half-way there, they have the size, the speed, and the weight capacity. Don’t know the size/weight of the sonar though. Besides cheap drones have low range and low speed, it will be hard for the perp to get away, or even get close enough in the first place. Non-state actors are very limited in budget. They might catch some targets off-guard, but it’s not a game changer.

DenisM 9y ago
There you go, a small radar. https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/12/echodynes-pocket-sized-radar-may-be-the-next-must-have-tech-for-drones-and-drone-hunters/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/12/echodynes-pocket-sized-rad... the price is inflated I’m sure. There is also a small radar inside the hellfire missile, but I don’t know the weight. I doubt it’s too heavy. And hellfire are $100k a pop, which is why I think radars shouldn’t be too expensive.
vidarh 9y ago
This misses the point. A $10k drone can probably take out a $12 drone, but you need to be armed to take out the bigger threat, because you don't know whether the drone any given defensive drone will try to take out is a $12 drone or another $10k drone with defensive capabilities of its own. That's the point of this scenario: Deploy a bunch of cheap junk, in between a handful actually dangerous ones. If you knew they were all just $12 drones you'd hardly even need a countermeasure - they'd fall down after not that many minutes flight. The point would be to force the defensive force to commit far more resources than necessary. > and do it more than once. Yes, but the problem is you need to scale for peak load. If someone sends 1000 drones after you spread around your perimeter and it'll take those drones 5m to target, you need to have enough to intercept and destroy all 1000 in 5m. Sure, you can reuse many of them - next time your adversary may up the attack to 2000 drones, and see if you still have enough to kill them all. > Besides cheap drones have low range and low speed, it will be hard for the perp to get away, or even get close enough in the first place. The $12 drones in question have wifi and transmit hd video. You can get suitable SOC's with dual wifi chipsets and relay connections quite easily, and some of those cheap drones also have proximity sensors good enough to be able to add tolerable flocking behavior. Judging from the stability of automated takeoff and "return" functionality on the toy drones I've tested, we're not long away from having the ability to have them do unaided flight. Not least because the toy ones do not need to reach a specific target: Flying erratically is not a problem. They just need to cause fear. Speed is also less of an issue if your intent is to spread fear - you can fly drones low over locations where a defender does not dare use too drastic interception means for fear of causing more harm than they prevent. Besides, the most likely use for this type of thing are in situations where some desperate group is fighting a state actor and losses are high anyway. It doesn't make it worse. > Non-state actors are very limited in budget. They might catch some targets off-guard, but it’s not a game changer. I think it is, exactly because they are very limited in budget; the terror you'll spread with a $10k explosive device + $10k worth of drones aimed to make the response more expensive is likely to be far greater than what you'll achieve with 2x$10k explosive devices, and the chance of actually hitting anything of value can likely be made higher. E.g. look at the rockets regularly fired by Hamas - it's rare they cause much real harm, because they're basically unguided; they're mostly about fear. For that kind of scenario, the ability to get people to fear the buzzing of a drone because they don't know if it's a $12 toy or a $10k bomb would definitively be a game changer.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by DenisM 9y ago

DenisM 9y ago

There you go, a small radar. https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/12/echodynes-pocket-sized-radar-may-be-the-next-must-have-tech-for-drones-and-drone-hunters/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/12/echodynes-pocket-sized-rad... the price is inflated I’m sure. There is also a small radar inside the hellfire missile, but I don’t know the weight. I doubt it’s too heavy. And hellfire are $100k a pop, which is why I think radars shouldn’t be too expensive.

vidarh 9y ago

This misses the point. A $10k drone can probably take out a $12 drone, but you need to be armed to take out the bigger threat, because you don't know whether the drone any given defensive drone will try to take out is a $12 drone or another $10k drone with defensive capabilities of its own. That's the point of this scenario: Deploy a bunch of cheap junk, in between a handful actually dangerous ones. If you knew they were all just $12 drones you'd hardly even need a countermeasure - they'd fall down after not that many minutes flight. The point would be to force the defensive force to commit far more resources than necessary. > and do it more than once. Yes, but the problem is you need to scale for peak load. If someone sends 1000 drones after you spread around your perimeter and it'll take those drones 5m to target, you need to have enough to intercept and destroy all 1000 in 5m. Sure, you can reuse many of them - next time your adversary may up the attack to 2000 drones, and see if you still have enough to kill them all. > Besides cheap drones have low range and low speed, it will be hard for the perp to get away, or even get close enough in the first place. The $12 drones in question have wifi and transmit hd video. You can get suitable SOC's with dual wifi chipsets and relay connections quite easily, and some of those cheap drones also have proximity sensors good enough to be able to add tolerable flocking behavior. Judging from the stability of automated takeoff and "return" functionality on the toy drones I've tested, we're not long away from having the ability to have them do unaided flight. Not least because the toy ones do not need to reach a specific target: Flying erratically is not a problem. They just need to cause fear. Speed is also less of an issue if your intent is to spread fear - you can fly drones low over locations where a defender does not dare use too drastic interception means for fear of causing more harm than they prevent. Besides, the most likely use for this type of thing are in situations where some desperate group is fighting a state actor and losses are high anyway. It doesn't make it worse. > Non-state actors are very limited in budget. They might catch some targets off-guard, but it’s not a game changer. I think it is, exactly because they are very limited in budget; the terror you'll spread with a $10k explosive device + $10k worth of drones aimed to make the response more expensive is likely to be far greater than what you'll achieve with 2x$10k explosive devices, and the chance of actually hitting anything of value can likely be made higher. E.g. look at the rockets regularly fired by Hamas - it's rare they cause much real harm, because they're basically unguided; they're mostly about fear. For that kind of scenario, the ability to get people to fear the buzzing of a drone because they don't know if it's a $12 toy or a $10k bomb would definitively be a game changer.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]