39 ms·
Defense wise, this is just an engineering problem to be solved. With the right technology, funding, testing, research and development this can be solved. Firs
by techjuice 9y ago
Defense wise, this is just an engineering problem to be solved. With the right technology, funding, testing, research and development this can be solved.
First phase should be how to detect very small items moving through the air that can receive and/or send signals. Since drones can be 100% plastic, wood, or other compound or material and move at very high speeds there should be some serious research and development going into this. As this would also help solve the were is the shot coming from problem without relying on sound. I would guess measuring the differences from sensors using air pressure, wind, temperature, etc. changes versus normal conditions in nanoseconds or picoseconds would be pretty good.
Second phase would probably be how to jam, intercept and/or repurpose the commands and guidance systems of the said drones. It is easier and cheaper to just have them land in a safe place and unarm, versus using ammunition to shoot them down. This would help in investigating and finding out who the owner is and improve defense capabilities without destroying evidence.
Third phase could be using scientific research from the first phases to create legal and regulation guidelines and policies. This would help filter out legitimate drones, home brewed drones and trace owners of the drones, plot previous flight paths and malicious usage (i.e. someone doing something with your drone without your knowledge and tracking who, when, what, where they did it).
- Gibbon1 9y ago> moving through the air that can receive and/or send signals Nope. > and move at very high speeds Flappers.
- imtringued 9y agoThe big question is cost. Does it make sense to shoot down a hundred $100 drones with a defense system that costs $100000 per interception?
- skellera 9y agoDoesn't matter what the cost of the weapon is. It's the cost of the potential damage that matters.
- vadimberman 9y agoDoes it make sense to stop a $1 bullet with a $3,000 kevlar vest?
- ebcode 9y agoReally good point. In this era of asymmetric warfare, it seems that the United States is now playing the part of the British during the Revolutionary War. If the enemies of the US can force it to overspend to maintain its positions, then every encounter will slowly wear away the US military's "staying power". Of course I imagine that a lot of, if not most, citizens of the US would be happy to see their government abandon its current role of "World Police", and wind down our occupations in Asia --- especially if those occupations are transforming from "wars of aggression" into "wars of attrition".
- acct1771 9y agoNot at all. Which is why defense contractors are already building swarms of $100 drones to take down other swarms of $100 drones.
- skellera 9y agoThe example of fixed wing bomb drones from the article just didn't seem well thought out. A higher quality yet still single use drone that could start from a high altitude and dive would be much more efficient (opinion). Imagine many high speed bombers with slim bodies diving down on a location from all angles. This would be extremely hard to defend against because disabling them would still cause them to fall into their intended targets.
- JPKab 9y agoWe have already perfected the art of dealing with small flying things. Shotguns.
- stevenwoo 9y agoThis works great with clay pigeons and hunting birds, but the first adaptation after failing to shotgun defense that an antagonist would take is to make the drones fly erratically unlike clay pigeons and birds once in shotgun range.
- vanattab 9y agoGame birds absolutely will fly erratically within shotgun range if they detect humans.