5 ms·

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.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > So how will these small, cheap anti-drones detect them? For the smaller ones, optics, combined with being produced in large numbers, to basically cover an area. Basically like a Tesla detects pedestrians. Additional information can be transmitted by radio from other drones (many of which can be ground based) as well as traditional sources, such as awacs or f35/f22. Larger ones would operate more like traditional aircraft with more internal sensors, including radar. > How will they have enough fuel and maneuverability to successfully engage them? Just assume that the anti-drone starts out basically as a copy of the drone it is supposed to kill. Then add 50% cost to make it a bit lighter an more manouverable. Their range doesn't need to be huge, they can be scrambled when needed. (Bigger ones can do in air refueling). A few can fly CAP missions at a time, during low threat situations. > 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. Maybe some day energy weapons will be effective enough and cheap enough to distributed like that. Then we will see what countermeasures are effecient. (Mirrors, faraday cages, etc). For counter-drones, I think they should be within what can be done with tech available today. They simply have not been built due to lack of need. But concepts that would fall under this class are under development. One relativly large example is Baykar Bayraktar Kızılelma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_K%C4%B1z%C4%B1lelma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_K%C4%B1z%C4%B... This one is a hybrid drone, capable of both anti-air and anti-ground missions. It would fall under what I would consider "medium" size. EDIT: Here is an early model of a Russian attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAqF5BVLU4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAqF5BVLU4
    - greedo 4y ago
      LOL, you lost me when you mentioned Tesla detecting pedestrians. Optically detecting something small at range is very difficult. When cued by other devices (radar/IR) EO systems like what the F-14 used to carry can zoom in and identify a target at range. With drones you won't have that cueing. Their IR/radar signature is generally too small unless you're talking Predator size UAVs. And the more you add to a drone, the heavier and more expensive it becomes. Radios, advanced sensors, etc etc. Why would I assume an anti-drone would look anything similar to a "normal" drone? Does a SAM (surface to air missile) look anything like a fighter aircraft it counters? Does an anti-tank mine resemble an armored vehicle? And you can't just hand wave and say add 50% to the cost to make it lighter and more maneuverable. That's just ridiculous. Modern aeronautics is a mature industry, and just throwing money at something doesn't magically improve flight characteristics. And range? Just hand-waving here as well. Range (what the experts refer to as persistence) is hugely important. If you don't have persistence, then to "scramble" as you so eloquently put it require high performance, which leads to higher weight and higher cost, as well as less maneuverability. And in-flight refueling? That's only been demonstrated on very high performance USN UAVs, and those are basically jets, not drones. The idea that these (or any drone) is even close to flying CAP missions is unrealistic. Currently there is no technology to build what you describe. None. And your link to the Kızılelma just illustrates how far away this is. This is a stealthy/low RCS supersonic aircraft with an AESA radar. This is what aerospace engineers call "not-cheap." And I wouldn't dignify the Russian "attempt" as more than someone strapping a shotgun to a hobbyist RC plane and calling it a weapon. It suffers from all the critiques I've previously outlined.
xeromal 4y ago
I remember reading a concern of the US Navy that one of the few means of successfully attacking a (carrier group?) would be a drone swarm. Something where they're overwhelmed with just the sheer number of drones attacking.
- nradov 4y ago
  Drones cheap enough to use in a swarm lack the range necessary to hit a carrier strike group operating in blue water.
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    isn't the point that this is only true now
    - nradov 4y ago
      This will continue to be true for at least the next few decades. There is no technology on the horizon that would allow for dramatic cost reductions in long-range drones with good sensors.

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.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > So how will these small, cheap anti-drones detect them? For the smaller ones, optics, combined with being produced in large numbers, to basically cover an area. Basically like a Tesla detects pedestrians. Additional information can be transmitted by radio from other drones (many of which can be ground based) as well as traditional sources, such as awacs or f35/f22. Larger ones would operate more like traditional aircraft with more internal sensors, including radar. > How will they have enough fuel and maneuverability to successfully engage them? Just assume that the anti-drone starts out basically as a copy of the drone it is supposed to kill. Then add 50% cost to make it a bit lighter an more manouverable. Their range doesn't need to be huge, they can be scrambled when needed. (Bigger ones can do in air refueling). A few can fly CAP missions at a time, during low threat situations. > 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. Maybe some day energy weapons will be effective enough and cheap enough to distributed like that. Then we will see what countermeasures are effecient. (Mirrors, faraday cages, etc). For counter-drones, I think they should be within what can be done with tech available today. They simply have not been built due to lack of need. But concepts that would fall under this class are under development. One relativly large example is Baykar Bayraktar Kızılelma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_K%C4%B1z%C4%B1lelma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_K%C4%B1z%C4%B... This one is a hybrid drone, capable of both anti-air and anti-ground missions. It would fall under what I would consider "medium" size. EDIT: Here is an early model of a Russian attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAqF5BVLU4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAqF5BVLU4
  - greedo 4y ago
    LOL, you lost me when you mentioned Tesla detecting pedestrians. Optically detecting something small at range is very difficult. When cued by other devices (radar/IR) EO systems like what the F-14 used to carry can zoom in and identify a target at range. With drones you won't have that cueing. Their IR/radar signature is generally too small unless you're talking Predator size UAVs. And the more you add to a drone, the heavier and more expensive it becomes. Radios, advanced sensors, etc etc. Why would I assume an anti-drone would look anything similar to a "normal" drone? Does a SAM (surface to air missile) look anything like a fighter aircraft it counters? Does an anti-tank mine resemble an armored vehicle? And you can't just hand wave and say add 50% to the cost to make it lighter and more maneuverable. That's just ridiculous. Modern aeronautics is a mature industry, and just throwing money at something doesn't magically improve flight characteristics. And range? Just hand-waving here as well. Range (what the experts refer to as persistence) is hugely important. If you don't have persistence, then to "scramble" as you so eloquently put it require high performance, which leads to higher weight and higher cost, as well as less maneuverability. And in-flight refueling? That's only been demonstrated on very high performance USN UAVs, and those are basically jets, not drones. The idea that these (or any drone) is even close to flying CAP missions is unrealistic. Currently there is no technology to build what you describe. None. And your link to the Kızılelma just illustrates how far away this is. This is a stealthy/low RCS supersonic aircraft with an AESA radar. This is what aerospace engineers call "not-cheap." And I wouldn't dignify the Russian "attempt" as more than someone strapping a shotgun to a hobbyist RC plane and calling it a weapon. It suffers from all the critiques I've previously outlined.

xeromal 4y ago

I remember reading a concern of the US Navy that one of the few means of successfully attacking a (carrier group?) would be a drone swarm. Something where they're overwhelmed with just the sheer number of drones attacking.

nradov 4y ago
Drones cheap enough to use in a swarm lack the range necessary to hit a carrier strike group operating in blue water.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  isn't the point that this is only true now
  - nradov 4y ago
    This will continue to be true for at least the next few decades. There is no technology on the horizon that would allow for dramatic cost reductions in long-range drones with good sensors.