4 ms·

This isn’t realistic 1. This won’t be your average <$1000 quad copter with a two kilometer range 2. Even if it was it could be hundreds of them 3. The milita

This isn’t realistic 1. This won’t be your average <$1000 quad copter with a two kilometer range 2. Even if it was it could be hundreds of them 3. The military are developing large aircraft that function as essentially fighter aircraft that can destroy your tiny gun battery from 50-100 km away

stickfigure 5y ago
This makes no sense. If we're talking about an opponent that can field fighter aircraft and missiles that can destroy anti-drone defenses at 50-100km away, they could just use those missiles instead of drones to destroy the "real" target. Seems to me the likely scenario is some sort of cheap projectile automatic weapon mounted on a vehicle. It doesn't take much to take down a drone and they move incredibly slowly compared to "real" missiles. Sure, 22LR, why not.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  iirc the "slaughterbot" concept is about tiny kamikaze drones. Enough explosive to crack open a skull in a drone about the size of a coin, and not much more expensive than that coin. Release hundreds of thousands of them for less than the cost of a single missile, and each of them will independently target and execute a single human. I don't think any kind of conventional gun is going to do anything against this.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Bullets are a truly silly approach. Grapeshot is already banned in war, and seems like it could be significantly more effective (but still they'll only tear a cone out of a cloud). As far as I can tell, the best defense is an EMP pulse to fry their electronics. If they aren't fully autonomous, jamming the radio might work.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    That's still very much science fiction though. What kind of battery power density would you need to make it viable? Also: Soldiers already wear armor designed to stop bullets. Not sure this is an obvious gamechanger.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > Sure, 22LR, why not. Because they're subsonic soon after they leave the barrel. A swarm could have fairly precise directional hearing, so dodging such a slow bullet isn't out of the question.
  - eindiran 5y ago
    I mean, you can drop in 5.56 or even magnum rimfire rounds like 17HMR (anything that is supersonic past eg 200m) and that issue is mitigated. The swarms could hypothetically still detect muzzle flashes, so that could allow them to respond. But the real issue is that the threat is a swarm, why are you taking potshots at it. Whatever weapon you use should be able to consume as many of them as possible at once.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      Birdshot? Plus less risk of collateral damage when the misses fall back to earth.

stickfigure 5y ago

This makes no sense. If we're talking about an opponent that can field fighter aircraft and missiles that can destroy anti-drone defenses at 50-100km away, they could just use those missiles instead of drones to destroy the "real" target. Seems to me the likely scenario is some sort of cheap projectile automatic weapon mounted on a vehicle. It doesn't take much to take down a drone and they move incredibly slowly compared to "real" missiles. Sure, 22LR, why not.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
iirc the "slaughterbot" concept is about tiny kamikaze drones. Enough explosive to crack open a skull in a drone about the size of a coin, and not much more expensive than that coin. Release hundreds of thousands of them for less than the cost of a single missile, and each of them will independently target and execute a single human. I don't think any kind of conventional gun is going to do anything against this.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Bullets are a truly silly approach. Grapeshot is already banned in war, and seems like it could be significantly more effective (but still they'll only tear a cone out of a cloud). As far as I can tell, the best defense is an EMP pulse to fry their electronics. If they aren't fully autonomous, jamming the radio might work.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  That's still very much science fiction though. What kind of battery power density would you need to make it viable? Also: Soldiers already wear armor designed to stop bullets. Not sure this is an obvious gamechanger.
klyrs 5y ago
> Sure, 22LR, why not. Because they're subsonic soon after they leave the barrel. A swarm could have fairly precise directional hearing, so dodging such a slow bullet isn't out of the question.
- eindiran 5y ago
  I mean, you can drop in 5.56 or even magnum rimfire rounds like 17HMR (anything that is supersonic past eg 200m) and that issue is mitigated. The swarms could hypothetically still detect muzzle flashes, so that could allow them to respond. But the real issue is that the threat is a swarm, why are you taking potshots at it. Whatever weapon you use should be able to consume as many of them as possible at once.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Birdshot? Plus less risk of collateral damage when the misses fall back to earth.