4 ms·

What would air defence against a swarm of a few 1000 UAV look like? Because China...

Retric 7y ago
Drones represent a huge range of different things. Assuming you mean something that’s a replacement for military aircraft. In order to have a useful X,000miles range and useful payload you need to build fairly large drones which means a large target. If their cheap that directly translates into low speeds making them a very easy target for anti air guns, or low cost anti aircraft missiles. If you want a large fast drone, that’s getting expensive. To the point where having or not having a pilot makes minimal cost differences. Note, this assumes it’s part of a modern war with extreme radio jamming etc.
- rblatz 7y ago
  Why would you not deploy smaller drones via another platform? Small cheap disposable drones are a game changer. Drop them on a military base and have them seek and distort any human shaped targets, any sources of RF radiation, anything that looks like a vehicle or plane...
  - chmod775 7y ago
    > Drop them on a military base If you can get close enough to drop a bunch of slow drones, you can get close enough to just drop a bomb on the whole thing instead. Much more bang for your buck. Let's also not forget that small drones might become 'banned' much like chemical weapons did, if they ever became viable.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Small drones will never be banned by international treaty. There is zero chance of that.
      - ta999999171 7y ago
        Why?
      - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Lasers were banned. Where does your certainty come from?
        nradov 7y ago
        Lasers were not banned and are more heavily used now than ever before. Only blinding lasers were banned by treaty, and even with those China is semi-openly defying the ban.
        Retric 7y ago
        “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.“ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It’s clear what they where referring to, as the argument was a type of drone being banned not all drones. Saying they “banned lasers” is correct even if they only banned a subset of lasers. I am genuinely curious if you have a deeper argument. As small anti personnel drones seem suspiciously close to cluster munitions, but might be acceptable.
        nradov 7y ago
        It was not even remotely clear what they were referring to. There are many different types of lasers. Considering that the US, Russia, India, and China haven't even signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions there's clearly no political appetite for such bans among countries with large militaries. And such a ban would be unenforceable anyway because small drones are dual use technologies which don't require specialized manufacturing.
  - openasocket 7y ago
    I'd argue we've had those for a while, just by different names: cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, smart glide bombs, etc. The SDB II has a 60 nm range with active terminal homing, including targeting anything that looks like a moving vehicle. Though I wouldn't consider the SDB particularly cheap, at around 200K each. I would certainly agree the these sorts of precision guided weapons are a game changer, though. I don't believe there's been a conflict yet where both sides have these weapons. Such a conflict would get very very bloody.
- networkimprov 7y ago
  A pilot severely limits the kinds of maneuver the craft can perform, where the craft can be deployed from, etc.
  - tolien 7y ago
    F-15s have pulled well over 10g without killing the pilot, however it damaged the airframe beyond repair. An aircraft that could routinely pull high-G manoeuvres would have to be reinforced to the detriment of its weight (and thus its size/range/load capacity) and cost. The expected direction of drones is as loyal wingmen (i.e., to carry sensors, weapons and/or fuel) and to be low-cost (i.e., disposable). If your drone costs more than an F-35 you'll want to get it home again, whether there's a human inside or not.
    - networkimprov 7y ago
      Reference?
      - tolien 7y ago
        http://google.com/ http://google.com/
dmos62 7y ago
A swarm of a 100 more expensive anti-UAV UAVs.
nnq 7y ago
You'd need a breakthrough in battery (or other form of energy) technology - eg. high range + cheap as hell ...I don't think/hope China will be a world leader on this anytime soon :) Ofc you can low-tech your way into it by just delivering drones in shipping containers and hiding them close to potential targets... Also, cheap ass drones + bio-warfare would make a killer combo, if you knew you won't get nuked if you implement it...
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  UAVs don’t have to be battery-powered; don’t mistake them for quadcopters.

Drones represent a huge range of different things. Assuming you mean something that’s a replacement for military aircraft. In order to have a useful X,000miles range and useful payload you need to build fairly large drones which means a large target. If their cheap that directly translates into low speeds making them a very easy target for anti air guns, or low cost anti aircraft missiles. If you want a large fast drone, that’s getting expensive. To the point where having or not having a pilot makes minimal cost differences. Note, this assumes it’s part of a modern war with extreme radio jamming etc.

rblatz 7y ago
Why would you not deploy smaller drones via another platform? Small cheap disposable drones are a game changer. Drop them on a military base and have them seek and distort any human shaped targets, any sources of RF radiation, anything that looks like a vehicle or plane...
- chmod775 7y ago
  > Drop them on a military base If you can get close enough to drop a bunch of slow drones, you can get close enough to just drop a bomb on the whole thing instead. Much more bang for your buck. Let's also not forget that small drones might become 'banned' much like chemical weapons did, if they ever became viable.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Small drones will never be banned by international treaty. There is zero chance of that.
    - ta999999171 7y ago
      Why?
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      Lasers were banned. Where does your certainty come from?
      - nradov 7y ago
        Lasers were not banned and are more heavily used now than ever before. Only blinding lasers were banned by treaty, and even with those China is semi-openly defying the ban.
        Retric 7y ago
        “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.“ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It’s clear what they where referring to, as the argument was a type of drone being banned not all drones. Saying they “banned lasers” is correct even if they only banned a subset of lasers. I am genuinely curious if you have a deeper argument. As small anti personnel drones seem suspiciously close to cluster munitions, but might be acceptable.
        nradov 7y ago
        It was not even remotely clear what they were referring to. There are many different types of lasers. Considering that the US, Russia, India, and China haven't even signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions there's clearly no political appetite for such bans among countries with large militaries. And such a ban would be unenforceable anyway because small drones are dual use technologies which don't require specialized manufacturing.
- openasocket 7y ago
  I'd argue we've had those for a while, just by different names: cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, smart glide bombs, etc. The SDB II has a 60 nm range with active terminal homing, including targeting anything that looks like a moving vehicle. Though I wouldn't consider the SDB particularly cheap, at around 200K each. I would certainly agree the these sorts of precision guided weapons are a game changer, though. I don't believe there's been a conflict yet where both sides have these weapons. Such a conflict would get very very bloody.
networkimprov 7y ago
A pilot severely limits the kinds of maneuver the craft can perform, where the craft can be deployed from, etc.
- tolien 7y ago
  F-15s have pulled well over 10g without killing the pilot, however it damaged the airframe beyond repair. An aircraft that could routinely pull high-G manoeuvres would have to be reinforced to the detriment of its weight (and thus its size/range/load capacity) and cost. The expected direction of drones is as loyal wingmen (i.e., to carry sensors, weapons and/or fuel) and to be low-cost (i.e., disposable). If your drone costs more than an F-35 you'll want to get it home again, whether there's a human inside or not.
  - networkimprov 7y ago
    Reference?
    - tolien 7y ago
      http://google.com/ http://google.com/

dmos62 7y ago

A swarm of a 100 more expensive anti-UAV UAVs.

nnq 7y ago

You'd need a breakthrough in battery (or other form of energy) technology - eg. high range + cheap as hell ...I don't think/hope China will be a world leader on this anytime soon :) Ofc you can low-tech your way into it by just delivering drones in shipping containers and hiding them close to potential targets... Also, cheap ass drones + bio-warfare would make a killer combo, if you knew you won't get nuked if you implement it...

heavenlyblue 7y ago
UAVs don’t have to be battery-powered; don’t mistake them for quadcopters.