3 ms·

You're designing a mini jet at that point, one that has to go faster than it's target yet be maneuverable enough to hit it. Which is pretty much just a smart mi

You're designing a mini jet at that point, one that has to go faster than it's target yet be maneuverable enough to hit it. Which is pretty much just a smart missile at that point.

wongarsu 6y ago
We learned in WWII that flak works just fine by exploding close to aircraft, which is much easier than directly hitting them. The same applies to drones. You can have a wall of evenly spaced drones with explosives. When an aircraft passes all adjacent drones explode, the shockwave damaging the aircraft.
- lumost 6y ago
  conversely a munition could be designed which destroys the entire drone swarm.
- fatbird 6y ago
  How large an area do you need to cover with drones to avoid, say, the F-22 climbing or diving by 10,000 feet? A wall of drones 100 feet apart, covering 10,000 x 10,000 feet, is 100 x 100 drones, or 10,000 drones, which is a wall that's a little under 2 miles by 2 miles. That's a lot of drones to cover very little area, and they have to each carry enough explosive to create a shockwave that might damage the plane. Moreover, this is a one-shot weapon. Once something sets it off (like a plane-like drone), there's a big gap in the wall. The idea of saturating an area with explosive drones has a scaling problem that would probably make it cost-prohibitive quite quickly.
  - greedo 6y ago
    And don't forget that these drones are going to need some sort of targeting system that works against stealth aircraft. Oh and they either need really good AI or some communications channel that will be jammed to death.
- nickff 6y ago
  You're still describing missiles; most missiles use blast pressure and shrapnel, only a few are hit-to-kill.
- nradov 6y ago
  That's a total fantasy, just completely disconnected from real physics. Due to the inverse square law, shockwaves don't propagate very far. And there is no possible way to maintain a wall of drones in the air regardless of unit cost.
- antihero 6y ago
  So some sort of air-mine?

You're designing a mini jet at that point, one that has to go faster than it's target yet be maneuverable enough to hit it. Which is pretty much just a smart missile at that point.

wongarsu 6y ago

We learned in WWII that flak works just fine by exploding close to aircraft, which is much easier than directly hitting them. The same applies to drones. You can have a wall of evenly spaced drones with explosives. When an aircraft passes all adjacent drones explode, the shockwave damaging the aircraft.

lumost 6y ago
conversely a munition could be designed which destroys the entire drone swarm.
fatbird 6y ago
How large an area do you need to cover with drones to avoid, say, the F-22 climbing or diving by 10,000 feet? A wall of drones 100 feet apart, covering 10,000 x 10,000 feet, is 100 x 100 drones, or 10,000 drones, which is a wall that's a little under 2 miles by 2 miles. That's a lot of drones to cover very little area, and they have to each carry enough explosive to create a shockwave that might damage the plane. Moreover, this is a one-shot weapon. Once something sets it off (like a plane-like drone), there's a big gap in the wall. The idea of saturating an area with explosive drones has a scaling problem that would probably make it cost-prohibitive quite quickly.
- greedo 6y ago
  And don't forget that these drones are going to need some sort of targeting system that works against stealth aircraft. Oh and they either need really good AI or some communications channel that will be jammed to death.
nickff 6y ago
You're still describing missiles; most missiles use blast pressure and shrapnel, only a few are hit-to-kill.
nradov 6y ago
That's a total fantasy, just completely disconnected from real physics. Due to the inverse square law, shockwaves don't propagate very far. And there is no possible way to maintain a wall of drones in the air regardless of unit cost.
antihero 6y ago
So some sort of air-mine?