5 ms·

Drone defence (detection and neutralisation) has to move fast because it’s quite asymmetric warfare (i.e drone worth $4K and take out a tank worth $30m) - over

Drone defence (detection and neutralisation) has to move fast because it’s quite asymmetric warfare (i.e drone worth $4K and take out a tank worth $30m) - over the last week for many nights Denmark’s airports and military installations has had drones disrupt air traffic and cause a lot of angst in the population and they were completely not prepared, haven’t wanted to shoot them down, and they don’t know where they’re coming from or where they’re going - scary that they’re caught so much on the back foot https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-25/denmark-defence-minister-says-professional-actor-behind-drones/105818578 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-25/denmark-defence-minis...

Mistletoe 1y ago
Why don’t they want to shoot them down?
- StanislavPetrov 1y ago
  Shooting at flying things in densely populated areas is generally a bad idea because when you miss, whatever ammunition you used falls on somebody on the ground. And if you hit, the debris falls on someone on the ground.
  - drysine 1y ago
    >when you miss, whatever ammunition you used falls on somebody on the ground No problem, you just say that Russians deliberately target civilians.
    - animuchan 1y ago
      This poses a fun dilemma: the belief that Russia deliberately targets civilians (which is likely correct) almost requires us to also believe that the Russian army fields precision weaponry allowing deliberately targeting things (of which the evidence is scarce).
      - drysine 1y ago
        >which is likely correct Why do you think that? >almost requires us to also believe That's easy. Russia deliberately targets civilians, but being totally inept, misses and hits different civilians. >of which the evidence is scarce Is it? Have a look at this one, where Russia hit Ukrainian MLRSes in a night strike.[0] Western media reported that as inhuman and savage Russians destroying a shopping mall.[1] The mall indeed suffered but only because the Ukrainians parked MLRSes next to it. Ironically the Ukraine itself provided the evidence of that by distributing video where they talk about the mall but incidentally show destroyed MLRS (the other one got evaporated).[2] [0] https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150 https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150 [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kharkiv-glide-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukrai... [2] https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133 https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133
        animuchan 1y ago
        Point taken, thanks! Re: Russia deliberately targets civilians, but being totally inept, misses and hits different civilians. -- Yep, absolutely, but this is unfalsifiable I guess. I mean, maybe they're targeting hostile aliens from space, but being inept, [...] Re: Why do you think that? -- I extrapolate from Putin's allies really. Hamas specifically (and very vocally / proudly) targets civilians, Hezbollah targets civilians, Iran and Houthis routinely fire ballistic missiles at residential areas. (I'm only listing things I've actually witnessed, as a noncombatant.) So intuitively they're all in the same bucket. I'll be happy to be completely wrong about Russia in this regard.
        tim333 1y ago
        There's this, though with a drone https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/17/russia-uses-drones-to-target-civilians-in-alarming-development https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/17/russia-uses-drones-to-ta...
        drysine 1y ago
        Here is one of the top Ukrainian propagandists posting in his personal channel a video from Belgorod (Russia) that shows wounded Russian women screaming and thrashing in agony (the text reads "Happy New Year, bitches") after Ukrainian MLRS strike at the city: https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 Here is the Ukraine targeting the same high-rise apartment building in Kazan with multiple drones: https://t.me/readovkanews/91042 https://t.me/readovkanews/91042 Here is the Ukraine blowing a bridge in Russia exactly when a passenger train was passing under it leading to deaths of civilians including children: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/deaths-as-russian-train-hits-collapsed-bridge-after-interference https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/deaths-as-russ... Here are a paramedic and an ambulance driver murdered by Ukrainian drone near Sudzha (Kurskaya oblast): https://t.me/readovkanews/85353 https://t.me/readovkanews/85353 I could go on and on. Which conclusions do you draw from that about the current Ukrainian regime or Ukrainian nationalists?
  - beeflet 1y ago
    does it apply to birdshot? The solution is many small projectiles with great drag to mass ratio
    - doikor 1y ago
      If you fly the drone 100m up in the air it will block commercial flying due to risk of collision but birdshot can’t reach it. Even if you manage to hit it at that range there just isn’t enough kinetic power left to really do any damage. For example here is a Finnish journalist being shot at 70m with birdshot. https://youtu.be/WJgzzrcSmNM?t=124 https://youtu.be/WJgzzrcSmNM?t=124 note that the shot did hit them but none managed to go trough the cardboard and normal civilian clothes were enough protection for other parts of the body. Basically outside of drones that are trying to hit you (suicide fpv drones) birdshot is kinda useless as there isn't really any reason to fly them so close that they would be in effective range.
      - XorNot 1y ago
        The other thing is even if birdshot works...the drone is likely to fall down relatively intact where again - it might hit someone.
      - nick49488171 1y ago
        Lest anyone misinterpret your statement, shotguns are still dangerous at long range: No. 7 1/2 shot carries, and is dangerous to humans, for 125 yards; No. 6 shot is dangerous for 250 yards; 3 and 4 shot are dangerous for 300 yards and BB shot is dangerous for 450 yards. The heavy shot used for geese is dangerous for 1,400 yards -- almost a mile. The spread will mean you likely won't hit what you are aiming at, but it is still dangerous.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  Bullets are spin-stabilized: if you shoot at something in the air and miss, the bullet will generally still be lethal when it eventually returns to the ground. That’s a no-no in densely populated areas.
  - Beijinger 1y ago
    ? You would not be able to hit a drone with a bullet. Statistics are against you. You use fancy AHEAD ammunition that disintegrates, and hopefully the drone with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHEAD_ammunition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHEAD_ammunition Yet, the bursts fired are expensive as fuck. Much more expensive than the drone. Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwjcayPuag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwjcayPuag
    - joecool1029 1y ago
      Can't some kind of shot shell get used that just throws pellets in the direction? Shorter effective range but way better chance of hitting the drone. Also, comparatively cheap. What you linked seems like it would only be needed for an armored drone?
      - Beijinger 1y ago
        This system has a range up to 5 km. Shotguns shells are sometimes effective, often not. There are enough videos of, mostly Russians, trying to shoot them down with a shotgun. This AHDEA ammunition, while expensive, will bring down not only a drone, airplane or chopper, but also artillery grenades.
      - bigiain 1y ago
        I'm fairly certain clay pigeon shooting type ammunition and aiming skills stand reasonable chances of hitting even small drones and doing sufficient damage to knock then out of the sky, but only at maybe 50m or so range. A typical attack drone like the types used in Ukraine right now are probably capable doing well over 30m/s on final approach, so it'd be a tough interception still, only about a one second window to get your shot off before it's likely to deliver it's payload ballistically even if you have scored a direct hit. I suspect the same sort of skills displayed in Ukraine building home made Ardupilot based drones with optical final stage guidance could also be turned to building multi barrel "Phalanx-style" shotgun setups on manual plus computer-optical assisted aiming, in a form factor compact enough to be installed in the back of a Hilux. And that'd be very much the sort of mostly Commercial Off The Shelf approach that seems to do so well tipping the asymmetric warfare in Ukraine's favour in this war.
catigula 1y ago
They aren't on the back-foot, it's just that there's no way to minimize civilian casualties when Russia sends weapons of war into neutral civilian zones by definition. The answer becomes deny and don't engage. It's gray-zone warfare.

Mistletoe 1y ago

Why don’t they want to shoot them down?

StanislavPetrov 1y ago
Shooting at flying things in densely populated areas is generally a bad idea because when you miss, whatever ammunition you used falls on somebody on the ground. And if you hit, the debris falls on someone on the ground.
- drysine 1y ago
  >when you miss, whatever ammunition you used falls on somebody on the ground No problem, you just say that Russians deliberately target civilians.
  - animuchan 1y ago
    This poses a fun dilemma: the belief that Russia deliberately targets civilians (which is likely correct) almost requires us to also believe that the Russian army fields precision weaponry allowing deliberately targeting things (of which the evidence is scarce).
    - drysine 1y ago
      >which is likely correct Why do you think that? >almost requires us to also believe That's easy. Russia deliberately targets civilians, but being totally inept, misses and hits different civilians. >of which the evidence is scarce Is it? Have a look at this one, where Russia hit Ukrainian MLRSes in a night strike.[0] Western media reported that as inhuman and savage Russians destroying a shopping mall.[1] The mall indeed suffered but only because the Ukrainians parked MLRSes next to it. Ironically the Ukraine itself provided the evidence of that by distributing video where they talk about the mall but incidentally show destroyed MLRS (the other one got evaporated).[2] [0] https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150 https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150 [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kharkiv-glide-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukrai... [2] https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133 https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133
      - animuchan 1y ago
        Point taken, thanks! Re: Russia deliberately targets civilians, but being totally inept, misses and hits different civilians. -- Yep, absolutely, but this is unfalsifiable I guess. I mean, maybe they're targeting hostile aliens from space, but being inept, [...] Re: Why do you think that? -- I extrapolate from Putin's allies really. Hamas specifically (and very vocally / proudly) targets civilians, Hezbollah targets civilians, Iran and Houthis routinely fire ballistic missiles at residential areas. (I'm only listing things I've actually witnessed, as a noncombatant.) So intuitively they're all in the same bucket. I'll be happy to be completely wrong about Russia in this regard.
        tim333 1y ago
        There's this, though with a drone https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/17/russia-uses-drones-to-target-civilians-in-alarming-development https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/17/russia-uses-drones-to-ta...
        drysine 1y ago
        Here is one of the top Ukrainian propagandists posting in his personal channel a video from Belgorod (Russia) that shows wounded Russian women screaming and thrashing in agony (the text reads "Happy New Year, bitches") after Ukrainian MLRS strike at the city: https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 Here is the Ukraine targeting the same high-rise apartment building in Kazan with multiple drones: https://t.me/readovkanews/91042 https://t.me/readovkanews/91042 Here is the Ukraine blowing a bridge in Russia exactly when a passenger train was passing under it leading to deaths of civilians including children: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/deaths-as-russian-train-hits-collapsed-bridge-after-interference https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/deaths-as-russ... Here are a paramedic and an ambulance driver murdered by Ukrainian drone near Sudzha (Kurskaya oblast): https://t.me/readovkanews/85353 https://t.me/readovkanews/85353 I could go on and on. Which conclusions do you draw from that about the current Ukrainian regime or Ukrainian nationalists?
- beeflet 1y ago
  does it apply to birdshot? The solution is many small projectiles with great drag to mass ratio
  - doikor 1y ago
    If you fly the drone 100m up in the air it will block commercial flying due to risk of collision but birdshot can’t reach it. Even if you manage to hit it at that range there just isn’t enough kinetic power left to really do any damage. For example here is a Finnish journalist being shot at 70m with birdshot. https://youtu.be/WJgzzrcSmNM?t=124 https://youtu.be/WJgzzrcSmNM?t=124 note that the shot did hit them but none managed to go trough the cardboard and normal civilian clothes were enough protection for other parts of the body. Basically outside of drones that are trying to hit you (suicide fpv drones) birdshot is kinda useless as there isn't really any reason to fly them so close that they would be in effective range.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      The other thing is even if birdshot works...the drone is likely to fall down relatively intact where again - it might hit someone.
    - nick49488171 1y ago
      Lest anyone misinterpret your statement, shotguns are still dangerous at long range: No. 7 1/2 shot carries, and is dangerous to humans, for 125 yards; No. 6 shot is dangerous for 250 yards; 3 and 4 shot are dangerous for 300 yards and BB shot is dangerous for 450 yards. The heavy shot used for geese is dangerous for 1,400 yards -- almost a mile. The spread will mean you likely won't hit what you are aiming at, but it is still dangerous.
Analemma_ 1y ago
Bullets are spin-stabilized: if you shoot at something in the air and miss, the bullet will generally still be lethal when it eventually returns to the ground. That’s a no-no in densely populated areas.
- Beijinger 1y ago
  ? You would not be able to hit a drone with a bullet. Statistics are against you. You use fancy AHEAD ammunition that disintegrates, and hopefully the drone with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHEAD_ammunition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHEAD_ammunition Yet, the bursts fired are expensive as fuck. Much more expensive than the drone. Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwjcayPuag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwjcayPuag
  - joecool1029 1y ago
    Can't some kind of shot shell get used that just throws pellets in the direction? Shorter effective range but way better chance of hitting the drone. Also, comparatively cheap. What you linked seems like it would only be needed for an armored drone?
    - Beijinger 1y ago
      This system has a range up to 5 km. Shotguns shells are sometimes effective, often not. There are enough videos of, mostly Russians, trying to shoot them down with a shotgun. This AHDEA ammunition, while expensive, will bring down not only a drone, airplane or chopper, but also artillery grenades.
    - bigiain 1y ago
      I'm fairly certain clay pigeon shooting type ammunition and aiming skills stand reasonable chances of hitting even small drones and doing sufficient damage to knock then out of the sky, but only at maybe 50m or so range. A typical attack drone like the types used in Ukraine right now are probably capable doing well over 30m/s on final approach, so it'd be a tough interception still, only about a one second window to get your shot off before it's likely to deliver it's payload ballistically even if you have scored a direct hit. I suspect the same sort of skills displayed in Ukraine building home made Ardupilot based drones with optical final stage guidance could also be turned to building multi barrel "Phalanx-style" shotgun setups on manual plus computer-optical assisted aiming, in a form factor compact enough to be installed in the back of a Hilux. And that'd be very much the sort of mostly Commercial Off The Shelf approach that seems to do so well tipping the asymmetric warfare in Ukraine's favour in this war.

catigula 1y ago

They aren't on the back-foot, it's just that there's no way to minimize civilian casualties when Russia sends weapons of war into neutral civilian zones by definition. The answer becomes deny and don't engage. It's gray-zone warfare.