4 ms·

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, che

by 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.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I think you are missing one key point: numbers. Let's say a drone costs $10000, and you buy as many of them as it costs to buy+operate 100 F35. How many do you get? The key is that you have tens of thousands of these things (more of the smaller ones), and distribute them along the front, near the infantry. Maybe instead of a hand mortar or a machine gun, some platoons would carry a couple of these. Or vehicles of all sizes could have a couple of these mounted simmilar to APS's, kind of like how naval vessels carry helicopters. Then you make sure that the detection capability is networked between the drones, as well as with other detection systems (land based, awacs + fighters). This way, detection is not done at rangs of 100's of km, but of 100's of meters, in the same ballpark that a car detects objects. Also, for the same reason, this means that you don't need a combat radius of 1000km. A combat radus of 100km may be enough. If you need to deploy them further away, one could have setups where they are deployed as munitions from other aircraft (anything from a B52 to a large UAV). Kind of like this: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-drone-swarm-dropped-from-jets-plans-its-own-moves/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-dro... >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. A lot present days UAV's are made witha a lot of focus on cost. That's how they (some of them) cost only 10% of a stinger missile. That's also why you don't want to use a stinger to shoot down a cheap UAV. But, obviously, these cheap drones have a lot of tradeoffs to keep the cost down. Maybe they use aluminium instead of magnesium or composites as materials? Maybe the electronics is a couple of generations older, and both a bit heavy and unsophisticated? Maybe engines are off-the-shelf versions, and not state of the art. Except for the most advanced drones, I would expect it to be possible to pay some extra $ to get somewhat higher performance, such as 10% more speed, 5% faster turn/roll rate, 20% more advanced electronics, with enough weight saved, to be able to add a gun and maybe a better radio. Also, keep in mind that many potential enemies are not nearly as advanced technologially as the USA. Even compared to Russia, the USA has better tech in most fields, and compared to North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and many other potential enemies that may deploy large number of drones, USA may definitely deploy more advanced tech. With China it may be harder/more symmetrical. > And in-flight refueling? UAV's would exist at different sizes (I described this in another sub-thread). Only the ones that are basically the size of a fighter plane would have in-flight refueling, like the Kızılelma. In turns of numbers, 90-99% of the UAV's I imagine in this model, would be closer to that Russian one in size, or smaller, except that the software would be mature. These are the ones that would be able to counter enemy UAV's that are too cheap to be be worth a stinger missile.

by greedo 4y ago

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.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I think you are missing one key point: numbers. Let's say a drone costs $10000, and you buy as many of them as it costs to buy+operate 100 F35. How many do you get? The key is that you have tens of thousands of these things (more of the smaller ones), and distribute them along the front, near the infantry. Maybe instead of a hand mortar or a machine gun, some platoons would carry a couple of these. Or vehicles of all sizes could have a couple of these mounted simmilar to APS's, kind of like how naval vessels carry helicopters. Then you make sure that the detection capability is networked between the drones, as well as with other detection systems (land based, awacs + fighters). This way, detection is not done at rangs of 100's of km, but of 100's of meters, in the same ballpark that a car detects objects. Also, for the same reason, this means that you don't need a combat radius of 1000km. A combat radus of 100km may be enough. If you need to deploy them further away, one could have setups where they are deployed as munitions from other aircraft (anything from a B52 to a large UAV). Kind of like this: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-drone-swarm-dropped-from-jets-plans-its-own-moves/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-dro... >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. A lot present days UAV's are made witha a lot of focus on cost. That's how they (some of them) cost only 10% of a stinger missile. That's also why you don't want to use a stinger to shoot down a cheap UAV. But, obviously, these cheap drones have a lot of tradeoffs to keep the cost down. Maybe they use aluminium instead of magnesium or composites as materials? Maybe the electronics is a couple of generations older, and both a bit heavy and unsophisticated? Maybe engines are off-the-shelf versions, and not state of the art. Except for the most advanced drones, I would expect it to be possible to pay some extra $ to get somewhat higher performance, such as 10% more speed, 5% faster turn/roll rate, 20% more advanced electronics, with enough weight saved, to be able to add a gun and maybe a better radio. Also, keep in mind that many potential enemies are not nearly as advanced technologially as the USA. Even compared to Russia, the USA has better tech in most fields, and compared to North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and many other potential enemies that may deploy large number of drones, USA may definitely deploy more advanced tech. With China it may be harder/more symmetrical. > And in-flight refueling? UAV's would exist at different sizes (I described this in another sub-thread). Only the ones that are basically the size of a fighter plane would have in-flight refueling, like the Kızılelma. In turns of numbers, 90-99% of the UAV's I imagine in this model, would be closer to that Russian one in size, or smaller, except that the software would be mature. These are the ones that would be able to counter enemy UAV's that are too cheap to be be worth a stinger missile.