14 ms·

I think the more interesting part to think about is drones which were involved in this sinking. This is a very rapidly evolving area of warfare. Right now we'r

I think the more interesting part to think about is drones which were involved in this sinking. This is a very rapidly evolving area of warfare. Right now we're using drones like we used early WW1 aircraft. As spotters for long range weapons and very occasionally as direct bombers. We haven't yet developed drones that shoot down other drones cheaply. So we can spot enemy formations, ships, tanks etc. without any cost effective way to stop the small spotter drones. I see this changing soon. We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again. So don't throw away old tactics and equipment just yet. There's a gap where we have no reasonable way to stop drones that will soon be addressed.

_boffin_ 4y ago
Actually... Anduril (Palmer's company) actually has one that's called the Anvil that does exactly what you're talking about: https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/ https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/
ajross 4y ago
> I see this changing soon. We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again. That's hard to imagine. You can do the spotting job with a $400 consumer device. No piece of autonomous weapons delivery hardware in the modern world exists with a price tag less than 100x that amount. Drones are simply too cheap. If there's a reasonable countermeasure, look to ECM (though frankly modern broadband wifi is remarkably resistant there too, given all the "jamming" present in modern coffee establishments!) and not drone killers.
- rr808 4y ago
  Right now they're shooting down small drones with $100k manpads. I'm not convinced drones are sensitive to ECM.
  - tazjin 4y ago
    Russia said they're shooting down drones with laser weapons, which sounds kinda reasonable. Probably fairly quick to aim, and definitely very quick to deliver. Colourless, instant laser is the Star Wars we deserve, not the Star Wars we wanted, though ;)
    - javajosh 4y ago
      >Russia said they're shooting down drones with laser weapons I tend not to believe this. In part because Russia is very comfortable with shameless lying, and in part because it's really hard to deliver enough energy with a laser to a moving target. That said, non-moving (hovering) drones would be very reasonable targets as you can illuminate for as long as it takes for an important part to melt. BTW my favorite anti-drone tech are trained hunting hawks. Hawks are a weapon for a more...civilized time.
      - the_snooze 4y ago
        >it's really hard to deliver enough energy with a laser to a moving target. Israel demonstrated that capability earlier this year. https://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-israel-testing-iron-130044341.html https://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-israel-testing-iron-13004...
      - dTal 4y ago
        Sounds like a fantastic way to rapidly maim a hawk.
        doodlebugging 4y ago
        I think the goal with this method could be to train the hawk to carry an object such as a net or dangling string that the hawk would drop into the propellers of the drone, thus disabling it. One could also use a hawk as a platform to carry electronic means of disabling drones. The problem with hawks and drones becomes one of teaching the hawk to recognize enemy drones since it is likely in future wars that all sides will use drones and that it may be difficult to identify who controls a particular drone without monitoring that drone to map its communication path. It's cool to use a bird that instinctively hunts other birds but we need to understand that hawks are not hard to see and to eliminate so their utility on a battlefield is limited.
- baq 4y ago
  for quadrocopters, you want a hunter-killer drone with some kind of a net or tape to jam the propeller. for plane-like drones... guess something similar. gliders may be super hard to spot and will still be somewhat effective without a working propeller, so tough luck.
  - Steltek 4y ago
    Net or tape? In a war? Why not suicide your drone into the target drone? If you want something reusable or longer range, a shotgun-like apparatus. Gliders will be easier to spot because they won't be able to actively navigate through trees for cover the way the way a more nimble, powered drone could.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      Ramming seems the most practical and cost effective solution.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Have you ever tried to catch a sparrow with a drine? Imagine how hard it is to hit a target that is actively avoiding you
    - baq 4y ago
      A suicidal drone is a guided missile. There are many options on the market for these already. They’re universally way more expensive than necessary to combat a cheap swarm. You want something that won’t bankrupt you while you’re mounting a defense.
- trashtester 4y ago
  What I've imagined for the past decade or so, are spotter drones that are about the same size as the drones they are design to shoot down. These spotter drones could be built much like WW1/WW2 aircraft, just much smaller, with top speeds between 50-200knots for the smaller versions. As a weapon, they could carry weapons similar to submachineguns, shotguns or light marchine guns, depending on the size of the target. Add an AI of about the same level of sophistication as the "autopilots" in cars, and they should be able to identify and shoot down hostile drones relatively cost efficiently. Produced at scale, the smallest versions (designed to shoot down comercially available drones, for instance), would not have to cost all that much more than the drones they are designed to shoot down, if produced at scale. I'm imagining at least 3-4 size categories, lets say. 1) Tiny, able to shoot down most quad copters. Top speed of 50-100knots. Price needs to be low enough to allow tens of thousands to be produced. Could potentially also double as anti-infantry weapons by strafing. 2) Small. Able to shoot down switchblade-sized drones. Top speed of maybe 200 knots. Can be produced in numbers of thousands. 3) Medium. Sutable to hunt small UAV's, such as Buyraktar. Top speed of several hundered knots, maybe just below Mach 1. Somewhat more expensive than the Buyraktar, but can also carry some of the same ordanance, like a tiny fighter-bomber. 4) Full-sized, possibly supersonic. Basically the same as the Loyal Wingman concept. Designed to counter other full-sized drones as well as manned aircraft. Basically, the removal of a pilot, allows aircraft to span a wide range of sizes, and I would expect all sizes to be produced, as it is uneconomical to hunt quadcopters with full sized aircraft, while it is impossible to hunt supersonic aircraft with switchblade type aircraft. In a way, this would be analogous to naval vessels, with different sizes serving different roles, from corvettes, MTB's and attacks subs, through frigates and cruisers, to WW2 style batlleships or carriers. Now, for the AI researchers out there, imagine the careers that can be built around providing AI's for these vehicles. To see your own AI locked in a WW2 style dogfight with a similar drone from another country, in a real-time feed.....
  - hooande 4y ago
    Human drone pilots are cheap and reasonably easy to train. The "AI" that you need is the targeting and guidance system. If I can see any enemy drone on a camera, all I need to do is get a lock and fire. The problem is that precision guided munitions are fairly expensive. Drones are cheap, but giving them any kind of offensive ability increases the cost significantly. A switchblade drone only costs about $6,000 and there still aren't swarms of thousands of them. Maybe once the economics enable massing hundreds of thousands of drones, autonomous control will become more reasonable.
- cesarb 4y ago
  > No piece of autonomous weapons delivery hardware in the modern world exists with a price tag less than 100x that amount. Drones are simply too cheap. I recently found a video at https://twitter.com/FortemTech/status/1526925732122968067 https://twitter.com/FortemTech/status/1526925732122968067 (source: https://twitter.com/TomReiner4/status/1528214932461846528 https://twitter.com/TomReiner4/status/1528214932461846528) which shows an anti-drone drone. Unfortunately, I couldn't find its price tag, but looking at the images in the manufacturer's site, it doesn't look like it would be much more expensive to manufacture than an equivalent-sized DJI drone.
- robotnikman 4y ago
  A good old fashioned flak cannon would do the trick, except now with modern targeting systems
medo-bear 4y ago
what i think is concerning is that the drone will likely become the new ak47 and we will have a new era of guerilla warfare and terrorism on our hands
- lm28469 4y ago
  > drone will ISIS peeps have been dropping mortar rounds from DJI drones for a few years now, it's already a reality
- trashtester 4y ago
  I would say the only defense againts small, cheap drones, are small cheap anti-drones. These would be able to shoot down the cheap drones at the cost of a few bullets and a gallon of fuel.
  - machiaweliczny 4y ago
    I think laser systems will be used for drone defence
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Laser is probably good for defending high priority targets, especially from fast flying (including hypersonic) missiles and drones. For defence against swarms of quadcopters with hand grenades, flying low through forests, cities or trenches, I think anti-drones are the only way. Anti-drones can also intercept enemy drones over neutral or enemy territory, through valleys, or other places a laser cannot reach. Furthermore, while a mirrored surface can protect against lasers, it will not defend very well vs bullets. Anti-drones can also double as drones (like fighter bombers), ie just have a manouverable drone that has some kind of forward-pointing gun in addition to whatever ordenance, spy camers, etc it might carry.
  - greedo 4y ago
    Drones are hard to detect due to small IR signature, and they are almost invisible to radar due the use of plastics and composites. So how will these small, cheap anti-drones detect them? How will they have enough fuel and maneuverability to successfully engage them? How will they shoot bullets (I assume you're saying they'll carry machine guns or cannon.) I think once the detection methodology is worked out for ground forces (which aren't as constrained by power/weight issues as airborne systems), we'll see directed energy weapons (probably microwave) used to effectively fry these types of low performance drones. Whether the detection problem is solved is an entirely different issue than the weapons used once detected.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again. Necessary? We already have lots of cheap tech that can destroy drones in a naval setting.
100011_100001 4y ago
I think the natural progression of war is going to be remote controlled systems. Drones are for flying. Remote Controlled land and water units would also work. There are multiple reasons why it's the future. 1. Cheap to make 2. Can be smaller since they don't have to have space for humans to sit in them, which might increase ability to carry things, longer range etc. 3. Because humans don't have to be inside of them they can also go a higher speeds, maneuver faster without human body limitations 4. If a drone goes down, the drone pilot can man another one. All that training and knowledge is retained. Human operated vehicles have a high probability of losing their occupants. 5. If 5,000 drones get destroyed, it's lost money. If 5,000 military personnel gets killed it appears much worse in terms of optics, value of life etc.
- laputan_machine 4y ago
  6. Killing someone by clicking a button and watching the explosion on a TV is much easier than pulling a trigger in the real-world
  - Gud 4y ago
    It may or may not be easier to remotely kill someone else from across the world, but I suspect that drone warfare will evolve quickly so it’s drone vs drone. I suspect few people would feel bad about shooting down some pieces of metal and plastic.
  - Damogran6 4y ago
    The PTSD articles from people in Las Vegas driving drones in the Middle East seem to indicate otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd...
    - bozhark 4y ago
      It’s not the killing. It’s the watching, tracking, and recording. It’s the months of getting to know every aspect of the individuals. They become real, not just the ‘enemy’.
Steltek 4y ago
I love the WW1 analogy! I think anti-drone drones are going to quickly move to being autonomous. No one's going to worry too much about "accidentally" taking down a simple drone and the threat of just one kamikaze drone getting through is too high to chance a delayed human reaction. Plus jamming or other measures will make direct control more difficult. An army will likely have a few circling "CAP" drones overhead at all times.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I agree, the anti-drone aspect needs to be low-latency. But I actually expect that soon, most drones will come with some anti-drones aspects, and some will will be multi-purpuse, capable of launcing some anti ground ordenance. For that part, they may come with a manual mode, for a while longer.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Assume there will be IFF for drones. With crypto key rotation to keep it reliable.
- johnrgrace 4y ago
  I think you need to think about drone swarms or herds. Not all of the drones need AI or the same level of AI. Some drones will support the costs of a higher level AI and others will have lower AI capabilities and refocus resources on other capacities like attack. Simple drones in volume may be used to overwhelm defenses.
toss1 4y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted - this entire operation should cause a major rethink of military operations based on new technology. The proximal goal of any weapons system or operation is to deliver live ordinance to the target, preferably at minimal risk to those doing the delivering. From WWI to WWII, the progress seemed to be to deliver larger volumes of ordinance, with some increases in accuracy. Since then, it's been longer range and higher accuracy, to the point now that we often need only a pair of 'smart bombs' or JDAMs to take out a target that used to take multiple full bomber loads. With highly accurate targeting, we can even deliver non-explosive ordinance just to minimize collateral damage. Of course Javelins, Switchblades,etc. make it close to 1-shot-one-kill on tanks and other heavily armored vehicles that used to be tough to kill. Following the trend further, drones and AI recognition technology seem likely to make this even more effective. I'm sure everyone has seen the Slaughterbots video [1], but much loser in technology is killing swarms of small bots specifically targeting enemy equipment, and the loitering switchblade is already here - just add some recognition, maybe it recognizes, operator confirms, and the drone tracks it for the optimal strike moment. Add the swarm then seeks and destroys other examples of the same vehicle.... Small self-contained flying ordinance delivery drones being disgorged from larger carrier drones or aircraft - already in design & testing stages. This IS all going to change and fast, and the smart militaries are taking a LOT of notes on this battle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots
ethbr0 4y ago
Exactly. Drones only look powerful because they're a recent innovation (in terms of military procurement timelines). They're being shot down with air defense missiles designed for helicopters, because that's the cheapest option we currently have. Once RFPs, responses, and projects work their way to completion, everyone will have anti-drone air defense missiles that, while still expensive, will be better cost:capability calibrated. The real difference that drone warfare seems to make is in persistence of ISR, which is why so much funding seems to be going into stealthy HALE platforms with stealthy networking and sensors (point to point and LPIR). The correct lesson to take away from Ukraine seems to be that future battlefields will have key assets (tanks, ships, supply stores, HQs, etc) under threat to a greater depth behind front lines. And not because of a capability change (i.e. a drone can get there with a weapon), but because of a visibility change (a drone can loiter and identify the asset). Creating a smoking hole in the ground at an arbitrary location is a capability most advanced militaries have had since the 1990s. What's changed is the ability to find something valuable to place that hole on, at all times, anywhere, at a cost you can organically equip smaller units with.
- datpuz 4y ago
  Meanwhile, spotter drones are getting smaller and more stealthy. How do you detect, much less shoot down, a drone the size of a small bird or even an insect?
  - b112 4y ago
    My only concern here, is a mini-nuke on board. Ever C4 inside a grasshopper (as the grasshopper also need space to move), is going to be tiny. Even if you made the grasshopper out of solid, but explosive plastic, a mini nuke would be far scarier. I wonder, what the minimal size of a nuke is. I'm sure we have limits, due to materials, explosive force to cause the compression wave, etc, but I wonder the theoretical limited mini size. I mean, what if an earwig could enter your ear, into your canal, then go boom, and turn your brain to mush?
    - philipkglass 4y ago
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I wonder about a future of warfare that condenses to strictly targeted assassinations.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Sounds like it describes current USA warfare doctrine? Seems like targeted drone strikes is our main method of engagement today.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  I suspect that kind of thing is prohibited by some secret convention among all more or less significant powers. otherwise, the opening act of this very war could've been a hundred cruise missiles wiping out the Kyiv's elites there is some Ukrainian city where the Russians had attempted to kill the mayor. the missile had struck the exact part of the building where his office was located. the mayor had survived because he overslept
WalterBright 4y ago
The fortunes of the front lines in WW1 varied directly with which side had air superiority at the moment. Not because the airplanes were effective at ground attack, but because of aerial reconnaissance. The defeat of Germany came because the Luftwaffe was defeated.
- greedo 4y ago
  Air superiority during WW1 had an almost negligible effect on the outcome of the war. Can you name a single battle where aerial reconnaissance was decisive, or provided more value than artillery, machine guns or proto-tanks? Even in WW2 where air power was far more powerful, it's still debated how much it contributed to success.
  - KineticLensman 4y ago
    > Even in WW2 where air power was far more powerful, it's still debated how much it contributed to success. The allies certainly had tactical air superiority in the last few months of the war, which hammered German Armour, but didn't in itself wipe out dogged resistance. The Luftwaffe was pretty scarce over the battlefields because it was occupied trying to stop the bomber offensive over Germany itself. The bombers themselves didn't really begin to properly dismantle German manufacturing until 1945. So air power did contribute to success in the end, but not as anticipated before the war.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Air power did little to destroy German industry, that is correct. But, and this is a big but, it was very successful at denying the German military gasoline, without which its military machine was crippled. The Air Force was very, very effective at supporting the ground troops. Whenever the soldiers got stuck on the ground, they'd call in the P-51s to wreck whatever was blocking them. The tanks and Wiederstanden were highly vulnerable to air attack, as well as getting their supply lines cut off. The Kriegsmarine's super battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz were destroyed by air attack. Japan's super battleship Yamato suffered a similar fate.

_boffin_ 4y ago

Actually... Anduril (Palmer's company) actually has one that's called the Anvil that does exactly what you're talking about: https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/ https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/

ajross 4y ago

> I see this changing soon. We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again. That's hard to imagine. You can do the spotting job with a $400 consumer device. No piece of autonomous weapons delivery hardware in the modern world exists with a price tag less than 100x that amount. Drones are simply too cheap. If there's a reasonable countermeasure, look to ECM (though frankly modern broadband wifi is remarkably resistant there too, given all the "jamming" present in modern coffee establishments!) and not drone killers.

rr808 4y ago
Right now they're shooting down small drones with $100k manpads. I'm not convinced drones are sensitive to ECM.
- tazjin 4y ago
  Russia said they're shooting down drones with laser weapons, which sounds kinda reasonable. Probably fairly quick to aim, and definitely very quick to deliver. Colourless, instant laser is the Star Wars we deserve, not the Star Wars we wanted, though ;)
  - javajosh 4y ago
    >Russia said they're shooting down drones with laser weapons I tend not to believe this. In part because Russia is very comfortable with shameless lying, and in part because it's really hard to deliver enough energy with a laser to a moving target. That said, non-moving (hovering) drones would be very reasonable targets as you can illuminate for as long as it takes for an important part to melt. BTW my favorite anti-drone tech are trained hunting hawks. Hawks are a weapon for a more...civilized time.
    - the_snooze 4y ago
      >it's really hard to deliver enough energy with a laser to a moving target. Israel demonstrated that capability earlier this year. https://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-israel-testing-iron-130044341.html https://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-israel-testing-iron-13004...
    - dTal 4y ago
      Sounds like a fantastic way to rapidly maim a hawk.
      - doodlebugging 4y ago
        I think the goal with this method could be to train the hawk to carry an object such as a net or dangling string that the hawk would drop into the propellers of the drone, thus disabling it. One could also use a hawk as a platform to carry electronic means of disabling drones. The problem with hawks and drones becomes one of teaching the hawk to recognize enemy drones since it is likely in future wars that all sides will use drones and that it may be difficult to identify who controls a particular drone without monitoring that drone to map its communication path. It's cool to use a bird that instinctively hunts other birds but we need to understand that hawks are not hard to see and to eliminate so their utility on a battlefield is limited.
baq 4y ago
for quadrocopters, you want a hunter-killer drone with some kind of a net or tape to jam the propeller. for plane-like drones... guess something similar. gliders may be super hard to spot and will still be somewhat effective without a working propeller, so tough luck.
- Steltek 4y ago
  Net or tape? In a war? Why not suicide your drone into the target drone? If you want something reusable or longer range, a shotgun-like apparatus. Gliders will be easier to spot because they won't be able to actively navigate through trees for cover the way the way a more nimble, powered drone could.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Ramming seems the most practical and cost effective solution.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Have you ever tried to catch a sparrow with a drine? Imagine how hard it is to hit a target that is actively avoiding you
  - baq 4y ago
    A suicidal drone is a guided missile. There are many options on the market for these already. They’re universally way more expensive than necessary to combat a cheap swarm. You want something that won’t bankrupt you while you’re mounting a defense.
trashtester 4y ago
What I've imagined for the past decade or so, are spotter drones that are about the same size as the drones they are design to shoot down. These spotter drones could be built much like WW1/WW2 aircraft, just much smaller, with top speeds between 50-200knots for the smaller versions. As a weapon, they could carry weapons similar to submachineguns, shotguns or light marchine guns, depending on the size of the target. Add an AI of about the same level of sophistication as the "autopilots" in cars, and they should be able to identify and shoot down hostile drones relatively cost efficiently. Produced at scale, the smallest versions (designed to shoot down comercially available drones, for instance), would not have to cost all that much more than the drones they are designed to shoot down, if produced at scale. I'm imagining at least 3-4 size categories, lets say. 1) Tiny, able to shoot down most quad copters. Top speed of 50-100knots. Price needs to be low enough to allow tens of thousands to be produced. Could potentially also double as anti-infantry weapons by strafing. 2) Small. Able to shoot down switchblade-sized drones. Top speed of maybe 200 knots. Can be produced in numbers of thousands. 3) Medium. Sutable to hunt small UAV's, such as Buyraktar. Top speed of several hundered knots, maybe just below Mach 1. Somewhat more expensive than the Buyraktar, but can also carry some of the same ordanance, like a tiny fighter-bomber. 4) Full-sized, possibly supersonic. Basically the same as the Loyal Wingman concept. Designed to counter other full-sized drones as well as manned aircraft. Basically, the removal of a pilot, allows aircraft to span a wide range of sizes, and I would expect all sizes to be produced, as it is uneconomical to hunt quadcopters with full sized aircraft, while it is impossible to hunt supersonic aircraft with switchblade type aircraft. In a way, this would be analogous to naval vessels, with different sizes serving different roles, from corvettes, MTB's and attacks subs, through frigates and cruisers, to WW2 style batlleships or carriers. Now, for the AI researchers out there, imagine the careers that can be built around providing AI's for these vehicles. To see your own AI locked in a WW2 style dogfight with a similar drone from another country, in a real-time feed.....
- hooande 4y ago
  Human drone pilots are cheap and reasonably easy to train. The "AI" that you need is the targeting and guidance system. If I can see any enemy drone on a camera, all I need to do is get a lock and fire. The problem is that precision guided munitions are fairly expensive. Drones are cheap, but giving them any kind of offensive ability increases the cost significantly. A switchblade drone only costs about $6,000 and there still aren't swarms of thousands of them. Maybe once the economics enable massing hundreds of thousands of drones, autonomous control will become more reasonable.
cesarb 4y ago
> No piece of autonomous weapons delivery hardware in the modern world exists with a price tag less than 100x that amount. Drones are simply too cheap. I recently found a video at https://twitter.com/FortemTech/status/1526925732122968067 https://twitter.com/FortemTech/status/1526925732122968067 (source: https://twitter.com/TomReiner4/status/1528214932461846528 https://twitter.com/TomReiner4/status/1528214932461846528) which shows an anti-drone drone. Unfortunately, I couldn't find its price tag, but looking at the images in the manufacturer's site, it doesn't look like it would be much more expensive to manufacture than an equivalent-sized DJI drone.
robotnikman 4y ago
A good old fashioned flak cannon would do the trick, except now with modern targeting systems

medo-bear 4y ago

what i think is concerning is that the drone will likely become the new ak47 and we will have a new era of guerilla warfare and terrorism on our hands

lm28469 4y ago
> drone will ISIS peeps have been dropping mortar rounds from DJI drones for a few years now, it's already a reality
trashtester 4y ago
I would say the only defense againts small, cheap drones, are small cheap anti-drones. These would be able to shoot down the cheap drones at the cost of a few bullets and a gallon of fuel.
- machiaweliczny 4y ago
  I think laser systems will be used for drone defence
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Laser is probably good for defending high priority targets, especially from fast flying (including hypersonic) missiles and drones. For defence against swarms of quadcopters with hand grenades, flying low through forests, cities or trenches, I think anti-drones are the only way. Anti-drones can also intercept enemy drones over neutral or enemy territory, through valleys, or other places a laser cannot reach. Furthermore, while a mirrored surface can protect against lasers, it will not defend very well vs bullets. Anti-drones can also double as drones (like fighter bombers), ie just have a manouverable drone that has some kind of forward-pointing gun in addition to whatever ordenance, spy camers, etc it might carry.
- greedo 4y ago
  Drones are hard to detect due to small IR signature, and they are almost invisible to radar due the use of plastics and composites. So how will these small, cheap anti-drones detect them? How will they have enough fuel and maneuverability to successfully engage them? How will they shoot bullets (I assume you're saying they'll carry machine guns or cannon.) I think once the detection methodology is worked out for ground forces (which aren't as constrained by power/weight issues as airborne systems), we'll see directed energy weapons (probably microwave) used to effectively fry these types of low performance drones. Whether the detection problem is solved is an entirely different issue than the weapons used once detected.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again. Necessary? We already have lots of cheap tech that can destroy drones in a naval setting.

100011_100001 4y ago

I think the natural progression of war is going to be remote controlled systems. Drones are for flying. Remote Controlled land and water units would also work. There are multiple reasons why it's the future. 1. Cheap to make 2. Can be smaller since they don't have to have space for humans to sit in them, which might increase ability to carry things, longer range etc. 3. Because humans don't have to be inside of them they can also go a higher speeds, maneuver faster without human body limitations 4. If a drone goes down, the drone pilot can man another one. All that training and knowledge is retained. Human operated vehicles have a high probability of losing their occupants. 5. If 5,000 drones get destroyed, it's lost money. If 5,000 military personnel gets killed it appears much worse in terms of optics, value of life etc.

laputan_machine 4y ago
6. Killing someone by clicking a button and watching the explosion on a TV is much easier than pulling a trigger in the real-world
- Gud 4y ago
  It may or may not be easier to remotely kill someone else from across the world, but I suspect that drone warfare will evolve quickly so it’s drone vs drone. I suspect few people would feel bad about shooting down some pieces of metal and plastic.
- Damogran6 4y ago
  The PTSD articles from people in Las Vegas driving drones in the Middle East seem to indicate otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd...
  - bozhark 4y ago
    It’s not the killing. It’s the watching, tracking, and recording. It’s the months of getting to know every aspect of the individuals. They become real, not just the ‘enemy’.

Steltek 4y ago

I love the WW1 analogy! I think anti-drone drones are going to quickly move to being autonomous. No one's going to worry too much about "accidentally" taking down a simple drone and the threat of just one kamikaze drone getting through is too high to chance a delayed human reaction. Plus jamming or other measures will make direct control more difficult. An army will likely have a few circling "CAP" drones overhead at all times.

trashtester 4y ago
I agree, the anti-drone aspect needs to be low-latency. But I actually expect that soon, most drones will come with some anti-drones aspects, and some will will be multi-purpuse, capable of launcing some anti ground ordenance. For that part, they may come with a manual mode, for a while longer.
euroderf 4y ago
Assume there will be IFF for drones. With crypto key rotation to keep it reliable.
johnrgrace 4y ago
I think you need to think about drone swarms or herds. Not all of the drones need AI or the same level of AI. Some drones will support the costs of a higher level AI and others will have lower AI capabilities and refocus resources on other capacities like attack. Simple drones in volume may be used to overwhelm defenses.

toss1 4y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted - this entire operation should cause a major rethink of military operations based on new technology. The proximal goal of any weapons system or operation is to deliver live ordinance to the target, preferably at minimal risk to those doing the delivering. From WWI to WWII, the progress seemed to be to deliver larger volumes of ordinance, with some increases in accuracy. Since then, it's been longer range and higher accuracy, to the point now that we often need only a pair of 'smart bombs' or JDAMs to take out a target that used to take multiple full bomber loads. With highly accurate targeting, we can even deliver non-explosive ordinance just to minimize collateral damage. Of course Javelins, Switchblades,etc. make it close to 1-shot-one-kill on tanks and other heavily armored vehicles that used to be tough to kill. Following the trend further, drones and AI recognition technology seem likely to make this even more effective. I'm sure everyone has seen the Slaughterbots video [1], but much loser in technology is killing swarms of small bots specifically targeting enemy equipment, and the loitering switchblade is already here - just add some recognition, maybe it recognizes, operator confirms, and the drone tracks it for the optimal strike moment. Add the swarm then seeks and destroys other examples of the same vehicle.... Small self-contained flying ordinance delivery drones being disgorged from larger carrier drones or aircraft - already in design & testing stages. This IS all going to change and fast, and the smart militaries are taking a LOT of notes on this battle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots

ethbr0 4y ago

Exactly. Drones only look powerful because they're a recent innovation (in terms of military procurement timelines). They're being shot down with air defense missiles designed for helicopters, because that's the cheapest option we currently have. Once RFPs, responses, and projects work their way to completion, everyone will have anti-drone air defense missiles that, while still expensive, will be better cost:capability calibrated. The real difference that drone warfare seems to make is in persistence of ISR, which is why so much funding seems to be going into stealthy HALE platforms with stealthy networking and sensors (point to point and LPIR). The correct lesson to take away from Ukraine seems to be that future battlefields will have key assets (tanks, ships, supply stores, HQs, etc) under threat to a greater depth behind front lines. And not because of a capability change (i.e. a drone can get there with a weapon), but because of a visibility change (a drone can loiter and identify the asset). Creating a smoking hole in the ground at an arbitrary location is a capability most advanced militaries have had since the 1990s. What's changed is the ability to find something valuable to place that hole on, at all times, anywhere, at a cost you can organically equip smaller units with.

datpuz 4y ago
Meanwhile, spotter drones are getting smaller and more stealthy. How do you detect, much less shoot down, a drone the size of a small bird or even an insect?
- b112 4y ago
  My only concern here, is a mini-nuke on board. Ever C4 inside a grasshopper (as the grasshopper also need space to move), is going to be tiny. Even if you made the grasshopper out of solid, but explosive plastic, a mini nuke would be far scarier. I wonder, what the minimal size of a nuke is. I'm sure we have limits, due to materials, explosive force to cause the compression wave, etc, but I wonder the theoretical limited mini size. I mean, what if an earwig could enter your ear, into your canal, then go boom, and turn your brain to mush?
  - philipkglass 4y ago

JKCalhoun 4y ago

I wonder about a future of warfare that condenses to strictly targeted assassinations.

jimbokun 4y ago
Sounds like it describes current USA warfare doctrine? Seems like targeted drone strikes is our main method of engagement today.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
I suspect that kind of thing is prohibited by some secret convention among all more or less significant powers. otherwise, the opening act of this very war could've been a hundred cruise missiles wiping out the Kyiv's elites there is some Ukrainian city where the Russians had attempted to kill the mayor. the missile had struck the exact part of the building where his office was located. the mayor had survived because he overslept

WalterBright 4y ago

The fortunes of the front lines in WW1 varied directly with which side had air superiority at the moment. Not because the airplanes were effective at ground attack, but because of aerial reconnaissance. The defeat of Germany came because the Luftwaffe was defeated.

greedo 4y ago
Air superiority during WW1 had an almost negligible effect on the outcome of the war. Can you name a single battle where aerial reconnaissance was decisive, or provided more value than artillery, machine guns or proto-tanks? Even in WW2 where air power was far more powerful, it's still debated how much it contributed to success.
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > Even in WW2 where air power was far more powerful, it's still debated how much it contributed to success. The allies certainly had tactical air superiority in the last few months of the war, which hammered German Armour, but didn't in itself wipe out dogged resistance. The Luftwaffe was pretty scarce over the battlefields because it was occupied trying to stop the bomber offensive over Germany itself. The bombers themselves didn't really begin to properly dismantle German manufacturing until 1945. So air power did contribute to success in the end, but not as anticipated before the war.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Air power did little to destroy German industry, that is correct. But, and this is a big but, it was very successful at denying the German military gasoline, without which its military machine was crippled. The Air Force was very, very effective at supporting the ground troops. Whenever the soldiers got stuck on the ground, they'd call in the P-51s to wreck whatever was blocking them. The tanks and Wiederstanden were highly vulnerable to air attack, as well as getting their supply lines cut off. The Kriegsmarine's super battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz were destroyed by air attack. Japan's super battleship Yamato suffered a similar fate.