Slashdot Mirror


US Army Wants Weapon To Destroy Drone Swarms

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. military loves to use drones against enemies who have no defense against them: think terrorist cells, ISIS/IS/ISIL, the Taliban etc. However, drones are getting cheaper to make, easier to use, and more technologically sophisticated. The day is coming when U.S. military planners will have to defend against drones. And they may have to fight off lots of them.

They already seem to have some ideas — their research proposal says such an anti-drone weapon would "disrupt these platforms' autonomous flight-control and navigation capabilities or cueing a weapons system like the Remotely-Operated Weapon Station (RWS) or other medium or large-caliber weapon." The system would be mounted on vehicles or at Army installations. More interesting, the Army proposal also notes that it might be mounted on UAVs, which raises the possibility of using drones to shoot down other drones.

208 comments

  1. That would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    an EMP!

    1. Re:That would be by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Easy for the US....Just turn off the civilian GPS and change the password for the military one.

  2. Throw the FAA at 'em by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

    No way ISIS can win against the Federal Aviation Administration.

  3. Other ways to disrupt drone attack? by Champaklal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about using infrared beams to disrupt or just plain simple water sprinklers (using some heavy oil) to make the fins too heavy to fly?

    1. Re:Other ways to disrupt drone attack? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Better yet just up the output on one of these things. It isn't like they aren't already on a heavy vehicle with a large engine capable of outputting several hundred KW. Since it would be used against drones you don't have to worry about the rules of war and what you can use against people. On second thought the very existence of one capable of taking out a drone would mean it would get used against people.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  4. are you an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course we're going to see hot drone-on-drone action

    how could you even posit a world where that doesn't happen

  5. EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't a tactical EMP burst take out a swarm od drones in fairly short order? Yeah, that might require a tactical nuke detonated at ground level, but still it's doable...

  6. Tactical EMP by stink_eye · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a tactical EMP burst do the job in fairly short order? I imagine a tactical nuke detonated at ground level near perpendicular to a drone swarm could get the job done... So long as the burst was line of site to the swarm with nothing else within the blast radius.

    1. Re:Tactical EMP by Sir_Substance · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are considerably less destructive and more awesome ways to generate EMP's then with nukes.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Tactical EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Single use? How quaint.

      I think we got this off the Roswell saucer

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Tactical EMP by stink_eye · · Score: 1

      Wow! Thanks! That was a pretty cool article. Stick a few of those devices on a cruise missle and just detonate in close proximity to the swarm! Again thanks for sharing a cool read!

    4. Re:Tactical EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was new to you? Cruise missile? The '80s are over, Grandpa.

    5. Re:Tactical EMP by stink_eye · · Score: 1

      I think the reusable part is eclipsed by the need to deliver the burst quickly and with (moderate) accuracy. You wouldn't know which way the swarm was coming or even multiple swarms from multiple directions. How are you going to drive that apparatus to the swarm? Maybe mounted on a shielded jet? But I still think the one time missle delivery would be cheaper more effective...

    6. Re:Tactical EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then use than, it's greater than then

    7. Re:Tactical EMP by Sir_Substance · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm a fan of the German stick grenade approach. Hell, why not drone mount them on parrot AR's? Cheaper than missiles.

  7. buckshot by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    belt-fed buckshot machine gun seems like a cheaper solution.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    1. Re:buckshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, just set up a bunch of mobile wind farms. This will also have the advantage of killing off the swarms of killer pigeons that will be bred in underground genetics labs.

    2. Re:buckshot by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      buckshot

      Oh, I think we'll see something new on the shelves really soon from Remington, Federal, Winchester, Fiocchi, etc.

      Droneshot

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:buckshot by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      buckshot

      Oh, I think we'll see something new on the shelves really soon from Remington, Federal, Winchester, Fiocchi, etc.

      Droneshot

      That, or just ask the licensed drone hunters in Colorado what load they're using.

    4. Re:buckshot by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Well, the best defense to a swarm of drones is a swarm of vastly greater numbers of smaller, cheaper drones, likely with lower range. I guess buckshot more or less is collapsing that escalation towards the end-game.

      Now, self-guided droneshot... that's the ticket.

    5. Re:buckshot by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      I'll take some Droneshot. Conventional shotgun ammo isn't designed to perform very well at 400ft which is the maximum altitude for legal drone operation in the US. As far as the military efforts, I'd go for some simple, but effective solutions that could be deployed via helicopter. One or two weapons for use in populated areas and another for battlefield operation should do it. Police on the ground could potentially use birdshot in a true emergency as is doesn't pose a grave risk when falling after expending it's energy, but the effective range would be something like 50 meters.

  8. shotgun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ground based? Why not use the existing 20mm anti mortar/anti missile systems?

    Are they concerned about swarms of little bitty drones each carrying 0.25kg of C4? Replace the 20mm with a nice powerful shotgun and keep the automation already developed.

    1. Re:shotgun by TWX · · Score: 1

      You mean, Phalanx CIWS?

      What they should probably do is marry the control system for the Phalanx with something like Metal Storm, which uses cartridgeless ammunition stacked in the barrels, to make a man or crew-operated portable device that can put a lot of rounds into the air very quickly without having a whole lot of moving parts. It would essentially be a sentry gun, but close anti-air instead of long-range anti-air or anti-personnel.

      And I don't doubt that they are concerned about tiny little bits of explosives being brought in on drones. A modern hand grenade is not very big and not very heavy, and a drone capable of carrying an SLR with long lens could probably carry a few of them, dropping them as called for.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:shotgun by Justpin · · Score: 1

      Because if they can fly and move in all directions they can become dangerous. For example an artillery shell/mortar has to travel in a ballistic path so if you park your tent behind a cliff face unless it is very high arc artillery you can't be hit. A mini drone can fly around the hill in a manner an artillery shell or mortar cant and into your tent with soft squishy humans in it then explode.

    3. Re:shotgun by tsqr · · Score: 1

      A mini drone can fly around the hill in a manner an artillery shell or mortar cant and into your tent with soft squishy humans in it then explode.

      Sort of like this.

  9. yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good ole jammin. Nothing new here.

    1. Re:yeah... by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 2

      Yup. We can simply reuse existing IED jammers. The only way to get past those would be to fly those drones by wire.

    2. Re:yeah... by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

      These are RF jammers that block radio signals? What happens when the drones are self-controlled and their internals hardened against RF interference?

    3. Re:yeah... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What happens when the drones are self-controlled and their internals hardened against RF interference?

      How is that self-controlled navigation working - image recognition based on ground features? Because otherwise, they're navigating using GPS or the equivalent. Interfere with that by saturating them with the same freqs, and they'll have no idea where they are. Sure some sort of inertial navigation system might be viable, but probably not with the precision needed to get some small drone as close to its specific target as such small devices would need to be (presuming they're not just spraying bio-hazards and the like over a football stadium or some such).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a dozen systems, such as wifi based geo-location, intertial guidance for nearby targets, triangulation from known stable signal sources such as broadcast antennas, and even GPS where disabling them means disrupting all *civilian* and much US military communications in the area.

    5. Re: yeah... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the lessons learned the hard way when ECM was initially developed: when you fire up a jammer, all the missile has to do is home on the jammers signal instead.

      A drone with some basic laser ranging/altimetering and an antenna would have no trouble locating and attacking such a thing.

    6. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably DR, you know like navigators did before GPS in bad weather.

    7. Re:yeah... by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Go look at the source code to one of the open source projects like OpenPilot,
      they integrate accelerometers, gyros, magnetometers, barometric altimeter and GPS for their navigation system,
      modern GPS chips also have anti-hijacking/jamming, eg SiRFstarIV GSD4t consumer device chipset,
      and the off the shelf radio control kit can do encrypted spread-spectrum comms.

      It is not trivial to stop one by jamming, a shotgun up close is way more effective

    8. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >image recognition based on ground features?

      Yes, especially for terminal guidance. You could also use ground based radio navigation, there are several open source chirp spread spectrum ranging projects available. For obvious reasons (ITAR) you'll be building your own.

    9. Re:yeah... by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

      It was implied that I meant navigation methods that don't require radio waves, as my post was addressing the simplicity of taking out drones that require RF communication. So yes, no GPS either. A mature self-guidance system that combined computer vision techniques with altimeter and accelerometer information could provide pretty good "best guess" navigation substitute in the event of RF jamming, especially considering that jamming would likely be temporary.

    10. Re: yeah... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      all the missile has to do is home on the jammers signal instead.

      The next step is that you detach the jammer - put the transmission equipment other than the antenna into a hardened shelter, and attach multiple (cheapish) antennas by long cables.

      Sure, you lose an antenna and some cable per attack, but antennas are cheaper than guided missiles unless you're doing something horribly wrong.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  10. Shotgun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a shotgun with an improved cylinder or modified choke? Instead of something fancy or expensive, KISS.

  11. How is this a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call South Korea and ask any 12 year old how to best defend against a Zerg attack.

    1. Re:How is this a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must appropriate additional pylons.

  12. Re:hey, no fairsies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    stop implying that what's wrong with the US military is that they seek advantage instead of a "fair fight".

    What's wrong with the US military is that it is being misused to
    attack countries which have not attacked the United States.

    And idiots like you don't even care.

  13. Altitudinally challenged? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    I did Read The Fine Article, and it referenced my first thought, which was "don't the cheap terrorists' drones fly low and slow?". Sure enough, the average third world drone is most likely of the variety limited to 500 feet and maybe full bicycle groundspeed. The F-35 on the other hand...

    So is this really a military need? Or just an excuse to spend cash on a new defense system? If ISIS or ISIL or OASIS (didn't they break up after that last album?) or whatever gets drones to fly up to serious altitudes, they're going to be larger Predator-sized clones (clones of drones, as it were) which can be shot down with bullet-sized bullets from the aforementioned F-35 or F-Anything for that matter.

    (Sidenote, the 'F-Anything' would be an awesome combat fighter designation.)

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking 5-10 years; DARPA is looking further out. And, they've been doing research into swarms of small drones.

    2. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the average third world drone is most likely of the variety limited to 500 feet and maybe full bicycle groundspeed. The F-35 on the other hand...

      So is this really a military need?

      What's scary is not necessarily military use of these, but possible terrorist use of these.

      Imagine some terrorists launching a large swarm of cheap low-flying drones in NYC with programming to seek out large groups of people and armed with high yield explosives and capable of putting out large amounts of shrapnel relentlessly all throughout the highly populated areas of the country.

      I would find that to be my greatest worry.

      It may be more of a domestic security need to have some special defenses than a military need.

    3. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Sell the new project with an animation. A cartoon of 50 normal looking shipping containers release 100 drab colored drones on pre programmed missions. No command and control to block, low flight, low speed.
      Some music, national colors and activate the drone patrol system. An advanced computer tracks each of the cheap drones, an animated engage sequence and they all fail.
      Its all in the sales pitch, music and fear of the drab third world drone.
      Another nation is sold into a multi layer, decades long contract to rent the drone patrol system.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      The F-Anything is an apt description for a project which has hugely overrun and is hugely over budget and still isn't actually usable. So it's more like Fvckit at this point we'll take anything.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    5. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

      You need a catchy slogan to go with it, The war on drugs, the war against terror (which is TWAT when abbreviated) that sort of thing.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    6. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A new homeland tax to pay for the drone wall? Lots of Spexer radar and big new super computers.
      Like the Distant Early Warning Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... but for third world drones :)
      Think of the funding and years of contracts :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And remember, the system must have a three hundred and sixty degree system of systems plug and fight architecture or it's not a real counter drone system. And the JTIDS viewgraph circlet thingy which looks like the Armisael angel in Evangelion.

    8. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, technology gives us another boogeyman.

      Good way to increase Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt though...

      You should be more concerned with goddamned cars on the interstate.

    9. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The Russians made a half pound air fuel grenade, you could probably fit several of those on each drone and then fly them into relatively enclosed spaces like subway entrances and roadway tunnels, or use them against densely packed areas. Hell they'd probably make for a great assasination tool, fly one in through each window and doorway, it'd incinerate most structures very fast. Although if the doors or windows were hardened at all using Russian Heat/air full RPG rounds would probably be best.

    10. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what you mean is we need more nsa and suspension of rights. I guess this will stop'em terrorists!

    11. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Thing is, it's pretty easy to think of, and viable with current technology.

      Designing, procuring, building and deploying without detection is about the only real barrier between major metropolitan areas and a serious terrorist incident.

      Planning how to detect and thwart such an attack is pretty sensible if your job is national defense. That's not fear, that's risk recognition and mitigation.

    12. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by rgbscan · · Score: 1

      Read the book "Kill Decision". This is basically the plot.

    13. Re:Altitudinally challenged? by tofarr · · Score: 1

      Or what about the risk of some psycho deploying these near an airport to attack planes just before take off? It seems to me that an attack of this type presents a large credible threat.

  14. That would be a Directed EMP by mveloso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with an EMP is you can't focus it. Focus an EMP and blast the electronics out of the sky. If anything you could disrupt the motors.

    These things are going to become a major problem. If you have enough of them, you could outfit them with grapeshot and basically saturate an area. If they're cheap enough you could cover a really, really, really large area. Put lots of plastic explosive on them and you could do some serious damage to buildings and depots.

    Today, a drone swarm would be basically unstoppable. Take a bunch of parrot AR drones and some plastic explosive and you'd be able to destroy or heavily damage any facility from afar. Good luck trying to stop them with anything.

    1. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The problem with an EMP is you can't focus it" ...and why not?

    2. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem with an EMP is you can't focus it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

      Why not just make a "suicide" drone, i.e. a drone with an EMP mounted on board. It fries itself, but also fries everything in front of it. Focusing would be significantly less of an issue from 10 ft away...

    4. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamas would most likely do this. Cheap drones with explosives. Flying below radar and all.

    5. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      IMO they should consider a Battlestar Galactica style flak shield.

    6. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah a connoisseur of fine middle-eastern militias you are. All from your command center in rural upstate New York in front of your playstation. Where did you learn about all that? Call of Duty: Black Ops? Battlefield 3?

    7. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big powerful microwave dish should be effective and inexpensive.

    8. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Actually, last year Hamas did fly a UAV into Israel. It was shot down by a Tamir missile but it did return video footage back to Hamas.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      These things are going to become a major problem. If you have enough of them, you could outfit them with grapeshot and basically saturate an area. If they're cheap enough you could cover a really, really, really large area. Put lots of plastic explosive on them and you could do some serious damage to buildings and depots.

      That is what mortars do, an they do it quite a bit cheaper.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      Mortars have horrible accuracy, you would be lucky to get within a hundred yards of a particular target with a conventional mortar. Whats more they are easy to spot for return fire.

    11. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For modern mortars, accuracy is better than 2% of range, with much higher accuracy possible if you use forward observer, although that would add delay before the corrected rounds hit the target. Spotting mortar might be hard as you can fire dozen rounds, behind a hill, in one minute, and then pick the mortar up and run for cover before someone comes looking for you.

    12. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      You are terribly out of date. I've seen guys hit a target a few hundred meters behind a hill with surprising accuracy. The first mortar misses, every one after that falls dead-on.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    13. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have someone come look for you.

      Radar tracks the trajectory of the mortar round, calculates it's original (since it's only a ballistic flight arc, that is trivial) and can feed that co-ordinate back to friendly units instantly

      With automated fire control system, the return fire is normally in the air before you fire the second round.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    14. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Well I would be the first to admit I am old and in my day yeah mortars were about the cheapest artillery you could get. Is that still true ? I know there was work on smart shells and automated mortars awhile back, which begs the question how cheap are they now.

    15. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much they cost, but they don't look much more than oversized M203 shells from what I remember. I'm not referring to 'smart' shells, but rather a skilled operator and probably very fine manufacturing tolerances (which allow the repeatability). They were being aimed by kicking the tube a bit to the left, a small shove to the right :)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    16. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by racermd · · Score: 1

      I had this thought pretty much immediately, as well. However, at the current sizes of commercially-available "drones", the military already has a such a system that could be easily adapted for anti-drone use - chaff.

      Otherwise, if they can be detected using radar, IR, etc., a CWIS-style system (though probably a little lighter caliber round) would be just as effective.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    17. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by racermd · · Score: 1

      The U.S. military has been testing mortar rounds that can alter their trajectory mid-flight for quite a while now. I remember seeing some "documentaries" on one of the more pro-military channels a few years back showing just how a system works. They were even testing rounds with active seeker heads and fins so they could do target analysis mid-flight and adjust to the target's movement, acquire an alternate target, or even self-detonate in the air (assuming no targets are present) so no "duds" would be left behind to blow up when a farmer or kid (etc.) finds it years later.

      Even if it wasn't a wildly successful program (as far as I can tell, it wasn't), it does prove that tracking a mortar round's trajectory back to the source isn't as straight-forward as basic ballistics, anymore.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    18. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) guns were an interesting homebrew thing back in the 90's. HERF redirects to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    19. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it may be possible that it's not a basic ballistic path, it's still a good bet (whether it's 99+% or 90+%) that it will be.

      It's possible for someone to create a system that fakes the path and taking the observer (radar) position into account, makes the target think the rounds are coming from another location. If done right, this could cause the target to return fire on the wrong assailant position, possibly innocent civilians, which could then be used to rally support for their cause.

      But in the real world, it makes sense to go with the statistically likely assumption. If someone is running a false flag op, misleading mortar trajectories are an unlikely option.

    20. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Why not just make a "suicide" drone, i.e. a drone with an EMP mounted on board. It fries itself, but also fries everything in front of it. Focusing would be significantly less of an issue from 10 ft away...

      Maybe because Xzibit isn't the one in charge of R&D for the US military?

    21. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by njnnja · · Score: 1

      This one? I suppose they would be as much an expert on drone warfare as anybody.

    22. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by peragrin · · Score: 2

      The problem is plastic explosives are difficult to focus. Try blowing up a building using at drones. You need to blow one up for every window. And most doors will require several drones with explosives to get through.

      To get a better idea of the effectiveness of kamkize attacks review the pacific sea battles of world war 2. You need to expend a lot of ordnance for minimal damage.

      Shove a firecracker up your ass and blow apart your legs. Set a firecracker off at your feet and you might get burned. Explosives have a big difference

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    23. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      With automated fire control system, the return fire is normally in the air before you fire the second round.

      Since there are also systems that will shoot down the incoming round, the return fire is probably in the air before the first round even hits the ground (if it makes it that far).

    24. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      I had this thought pretty much immediately, as well. However, at the current sizes of commercially-available "drones", the military already has a such a system that could be easily adapted for anti-drone use - chaff.

      Chaff falls out of the sky quickly - you'd probably want proximity shells full of it (plus some BBs), or a flail drone.

    25. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

      Hah! Perhaps he should...

    26. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Take a bunch of parrot AR drones and some plastic explosive and you'd be able to destroy or heavily damage any facility from afar."
      No not really. I do not care if you take 500 AR drones and put plastic explosives on them you will not damage a bunker. The do not carry enough. Now if you used shaped charges maybe but even that is going to be iffy at best.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    27. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Mortars are not going to disappear because they are useful, but there are many known practical countermeasures to mortars, including mortar counter fire.

      Drones offer a special new kind of threat because it is easy to imagine them having the intelligence to home in from many locales miles away and create an overwhelming & lethal swarm in a particular area. The ability to mass firepower is a basic combat strategy. Drones offer new ways to mass firepower quicker than ever from disparate military units spread over 100 square miles or 1000 square miles or 10000 square miles.

    28. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Since there are also systems that will shoot down the incoming round, the return fire is probably in the air before the first round even hits the ground (if it makes it that far).

      The larger mortars have such a long flight time that you can normally have 2-3 shells in the air before the first even hits. So you're both right.

      For that matter, with artillery there are techniques where you deliberately fire the first shells on indirect paths, then get more direct(faster) as you fire, timing your shots so that they all hit within seconds of each other - even if it took you minutes to fire everything. 'Time on Target' for multiple batteries in different locations all hitting at the same time and MRSI(Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact) if you're deploying multiple shells from the same gun. The latter is more common today than previously - you almost need computer control and programming to swing the gun fast enough to do it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    29. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The problem is plastic explosives are difficult to focus. Try blowing up a building using at drones. You need to blow one up for every window. And most doors will require several drones with explosives to get through.

      ... I think you need to step back and reconsider this post.

      First, plastic explosives are easy to focus. I've watched EOD guys do it by hand.

      If you're using 'kamikaze drones', I feel the need to point out that we already have them under a different name. They're called 'Missiles'. Blowing up a building would only require multiple missiles if you're using undersized ones for some reason - trying to limit the damage to neighboring buildings, the building itself is huge and armored, etc...

      200kg of explosives delivered by a missile is generally enough to collapse any non-hardened building. Or at least make it non-usable, which is kinda the point.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    30. Re: That would be a Directed EMP by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Update: Actually went back and read the GP. I take back most of my post - a swarm of tiny drones with miniscule charges aren't going to do much. If you want to destroy a building, bite the bullet, build a big(ish) missile and hit the target with that.

      Not that a tiny swarm couldn't be useful - it's a standard axiom that properly distributed charges can do more damage than a single large one. The problem with tiny drones is the 'proper' part.

      A couple dozen explosions on the lower levels of a building, even just 1kg per explosion, and you're at least going to be evacuating the building as you assess it's continued structural worthiness. They would also make for excellent anti-personnel systems.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    31. Re:That would be a Directed EMP by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. I can imagine three to five drones attacking, say, Times Square at New Years. I really cannot imagine that happening with mortars.

      Even if the Times Squares drones are unarmed, just having them buzzing close to the people might scare the people into a stampede, with tens or even hundreds of casualties. The technology can be legally purchased for a few thousand dollars, today. And the perps would be almost impossible to find.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  15. Phalanx CIWS by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Phalanx CIWS by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The US has a few issues with that. An older working system is not a new boondoggle.
      A new system can be exported and then has to have new support contracts. Nations are then fully locked deep into US export grade command and control systems.
      The other fear is reload time and the computer systems tracking a lot of moving objects.
      Exocet or a few 1970's Soviet systems?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Phalanx CIWS by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Looks like expensive overkill, and not all that suitable for vehicle mounting. But a similar weapon using short range radar and a gun firing buckshot could be made a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper. Sounds like an interesting hobby project actually, though I'm not to keen on homebrew projects involving computer controlled firearms.

      Maybe these guys are on to something...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  16. ahhh by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

    my videogame experience wins again.

  17. a really big net by sir_eccles · · Score: 1

    Like the old fashioned barrage balloons? or is that too simple?

    1. Re:a really big net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like some people do with the birds during the migration. Perhaps drones flying with low weight net mines, or whole nets in formations could reach the altitude required. I wouldn't want to be the person cleaning up the nano fiber mess, but that is probably better than getting blown to pieces for some nonsense reason.

    2. Re:a really big net by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Nobody, but nobody is going to hand over many billions of dollars to develop "a big net", so no... its way to simple, obvious and probably workable for the defence industry to get involved with.

  18. So um...WW2 era flak shells anyone? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

    It doesn't take much to take down a drone, so a little flak ought to do wonders. That or AEGIS systems and conventional ammunition.

    1. Re:So um...WW2 era flak shells anyone? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Yep.. AEGIS sounds about right, at least for somewhat close range. I imagine that new laser technologies will probably end up being the most effective.

    2. Re:So um...WW2 era flak shells anyone? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And how fast do the drones they expect to face fly? Much more slowly than a missile I'd wager.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  19. Begun, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Drone War has!

    Sorry

    1. Re:Begun, by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it. A film of this name and subject will be Michael Bay's next project.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  20. So Meta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drones shooting down other drones is so meta.

  21. US Army is running cover stories I see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They already have a substantial network of directed energy weapon technology, which are quite capable of remotely knocking drones out of the sky, through a variety of means including destruction and EMP to disable it. There's also remote control potential through Signals Intelligence. I don't think the US is in true danger of attack as they say..

    In fact this is patented technology. Look up Raytheon's multi-functional radio frequency directed energy system. That patent says,

    "An RFDE system includes an RFDE transmitter and at least one RFDE antenna. The RFDE transmitter and antenna direct high power electromagnetic energy towards a target sufficient to cause high energy damage or disruption of the target. The RFDE system further includes a targeting system for locating the target. The targeting system includes a radar transmitter and at least one radar antenna for transmitting and receiving electromagnetic energy to locate the target. The RFDE system also includes an antenna pointing system for aiming the at least one RFDE antenna at the target based on the location of the target as ascertained by the targeting system. Moreover, at least a portion of the radar transmitter or the at least one radar antenna is integrated within at least a portion of the RFDE transmitter or the at least one RFDE antenna."

    It mentions targeting humans, air craft, atmosphere and more. It images, tracks, and can destroy using the same radio frequency apparatus. http://www.google.com/patents/US7629918

    Another patent for disabling vehicles through directed EMPs is Apparatus for producing EMP, the last patent says:

    "An apparatus which includes a plurality of sub-atmospheric vehicular devices; a substantially high power microwave transmitter located on each of the vehicular devices; and a waveguide for directing microwave energy from the high power microwave transmitter to a point in free space. The microwave energy from the microwave transmitters is directed from each of the plurality of vehicular devices to the point in free space." https://www.google.com/patents/US8785840.

    Signals Intelligence has this deployed across the entire globe including the United States today in a network of hundreds of satellites and large ground based phased array antenna at sea, on land, etc. They already have a defense network for this and a delivery system.

    It also targets humans and is responsible for untold slaughter. obamasweapon.com.

  22. Re:hey, no fairsies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean when the US military attacks despotic governments that torture and enslave their own people. Yeah that's a misuse of the military. It's better to allow those people to be oppressed.

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Informative

    A very simple WW2 weapon that worked very well against tightly clustered enemy airplanes.

    It doesn't work as well today for a lot of reasons but mostly it is that you don't see raids by 100 bombers anymore.

    If you want to drop SWARMS of flying aircraft, flak is great. They bunch up and they die the same way everyone in a foxhole dies if someone throws a grenade in there. It doesn't matter if there were ten people in that fox hole... they're done.

    Same thing with flak. Set it up so it is computer controlled with timed fuses the same way they had timed fuses in WW2.

    In WW2, the flak shells were set to explode at specific altitudes that the bombers were all flying in. So you could have massed flak fire from the ground all detonating in the flight path of the bomber swarm.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Ships still use Flak to defend themselves. I believe they call it "defensive artillery"... the concept being that if a missile is coming at the ship, they can fire a salvo of exploding shells to create a wall of death that the missile cannot cross intact.

    The same thing could be used against a swarm of small drones.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Flak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some short of flak cannon that fires icicles as flechettes or hailstones?

    2. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Or high explosive fragmentation shells... which ever you think is going to be more effective.

      We're talking about war here... not fucking tiddly winks. So I'm inclined to be brutal because brutal works. And when you're pinned down by enemy fire, shard of concrete and blood going everywhere... fuck the enemy. Eat a high explosive lead cocktail, fuckers.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Flak by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FYI, Flak is a German acronym for Anti-Aircraft Artillery.

      It should also be noted that it wasn't terribly effective at stopping bombers. Note the second Schweinfurt raid as an example (considered to be one of the worst raids for damage to the attacking planes) - 291 unescorted bombers, set upon by both enemy fighters and flak, lost only 60 bombers (another dozen or so were so badly damaged they were scrapped AFTER they got back home).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Flak by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

      So I'm inclined to be brutal because brutal works

      You would use a massed drone attack because you don't control the land you are attacking, you'd get within drone range, hit the attack button then retreat.

      That means from a defense point of view, you are going to be facing a massed drone attack at low altitude over Forward Operating Bases, Friendly Populations etc. Is that where you want to be firing frag shells into the air? You'd cause more damage than the drones would have.

      It's been mentioned above, but shot would seem the obvious answer, limited range but that range limit is what you'd want to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    5. Re:Flak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was actually thinking of when you are defending your own urban population centers but what the hell if Uranium depleted shells are good enough for every other countries cities then then are good enough for Americans to,

    6. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      I don't agree with your scenario.

      1. I would situate military assets with a clear field of fire if I were on the defensive. This is regardless of whether I am invading or defending. The only situation where I might have to worry about civilian causalities would be invading an enemy city. In that case, I'm not sure how effective small drone attackers are going to be in dense city streets. But if I were actually worried about these stupid things then I would probably take up a defensive posture outside the city that could weather the drone attacks and then bait them into attacking me out there. I don't want to fight an enemy where there are directions I am not allowed to shoot. That cedes too much of an advantage to the enemy. When they fight me, I want to be able to cut loose and annihilate them. That is war.

      2. As to the proposed drone enemy... there are so many variables I don't know what we're really talking about here. Are we talking about those little quad copter go pro drones but with bombs attached to them or what? They're saying "cheap drones" which implies commercially available drones. Which makes me think the little quad copters. A couple of those coming at you something you can drop with some machine gun fire. They're not that fast and their flight stability makes them predictable targets. A shotgun with bird shot for example would probably be extremely effective. Which is basically a tiny flak cannon vs birds.

      3. But if we're talking masses of them... huge numbers... maybe 100 or 1000 of them... then close defensive artillery is the way to go. As to avoiding collateral damage, the shaped charges can project the sharpnal everywhere but where the shot was fired from. So it would not hurt your own people except perhaps from the shock wave. But that's nothing special in the military. The army has been using precision artillery for generations. At least since WW1. It was infamous in Vietnam because the US army could create a wall of death that enemy VC could not cross and the wall could be only feet in front of a US army defensive line. It is dangerous and requires extreme precision with those munitions but if you know what you're doing... it works.

      So that is how I would deal with cheap drones. If it is one or two of them... issuing some shot guns to the troops with bird shot should be sufficient. If we're talking about stupid numbers of them then... defensive air burst artillery for the win.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Why would I use uranium when the targets are unarmored? Cheap little drones will be fragile. Lead is sufficient.

      Depleted Uranium slugs were designed to punch through soviet tanks.

      That is why we built that weapon. Not to screw over little countries or whatever. But as a weapon to fight the big one.

      Did we use it in smaller wars? Against soviet tanks.... yep.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The losses of US and UK bombers in the day was a serious problem actually. The enemy fighters worked nearly as well at night as during the day. But enemy flak during the night was not nearly as accurate.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:Flak by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Losing 60 bombers out of 291 is plenty good enough--they may not have stopped that raid, but there's no way you can sustain a bombing effort with those kinds of losses. Fortunately, the Schweinfurt raid was exceptionally bad--and flak, by the way, was responsible for only a small part of those losses. German fighters were the main line of defense against Allied bombers, not flak. Until the invention of surface-to-air missiles, ground fire was little more than an annoyance to most aerial attacks.

    10. Re:Flak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After the second Schweinfurt raid, the attackers suspended raiding, and according to you it was their most effective. You disproved your point.

    11. Re:Flak by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      You don't always get to choose where you get attacked. As someone pointed out further up the threads, imagine someone got even a few 10s of these drones into a US city, each one carrying 1 hand grenade and the waypoint at which to drop it and then to return to collect more grenades - especially if the pick up is automated as well so you don't have to be there when they find that pickup location.

      Only looking for the most destructive defense possible limits the locations where the defense can be deployed. Basically, you are trying to defend in active warzones, while the most obvious place for a mass of drones would be high density population centers well away from active warzones because that's where they would be more affective.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    12. Re:Flak by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      Which is basically a tiny flak cannon vs birds.

      You might as well have it operated by trained rats, or maybe marmosets for full on cute.

    13. Re:Flak by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That style of FLAK is not effective any longer and really was never very effective. We still have AAA today but the gun is radar or ir directed and the shells use proximity fuzes.
      The real issue that the drone will be low altitude and the shells would be going off very near your own troops... Not a good solution. At sea it would be better.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      explain to me why a shotgun loaded with bird shot would not drop such a drone? Any police officer could drop that drone.

      Pop. And done.

      Now might this be a surprising weapon the first time it was used? Sure.

      Would it be effective at doing anything more then scaring a few people? not really.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It would be a fitting response to a toy drone swarm.

      Alternatively you could issue children with spud launchers to see if they can knock the drones down with pneumatically propelled potatoes.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      We're talking about low flying, slow, unarmored toy drones... A flak shell will fucking murder those things. Kindly stop repeating something you misheard in a documentary.

      Flak was very effective in WW2. If it were not then why were the bombers flying at such a high altitude? Have any idea what the survival rate of bombers would be if they flew a bit above tree level? Ground fire would annihilate them.

      The B17s could operate at well above 6 miles above sea level. Why were they flying that high? Were they trying to bomb clouds or get as far away from the ground as possible until they got near their target? And even then, why did they develop bomber sights so that bombers could hit targets at altitude instead of just dive bomb? Dive bombing or bombing at lower altitudes would not require the computer and would probably be more accurate regardless.

      Why did they do all that? Because getting near the ground was death. Because the flak was fucking murder.

      That is why.

      And we're talking about little stupid toy drones that are going to operate at less then 500 feet probably. And you're telling me flak wouldn't kill a toy drone or be able to target it?

      Wrong.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:Flak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah,with the ability of both terrorists and our police, military and intelligence agencies being able to soon print their own drones en mass, soon everyone will get to enjoy being caught in the crossfire with nowhere to hide. Even hiding in caves won't serve as shelter as drones will just blast the entrances shut.

    18. Re:Flak by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      explain to me why a shotgun loaded with bird shot would not drop such a drone?

      A thin sheet of aluminum would be all that's needed to armor it against bird shot. Of course, it depends on the bird shot - Consider Cheney's lawyer friend. Shot intended for a pheasant or quail doesn't penetrate even human skin very far. Shot intended for turkeys would work better.

      Armoring against rifle fire is orders of magnitude harder, but so isn't hitting a flying object with said rifle, thus the use of computer aiming with radar assistance combined with high speed automatic weapons.

      If you're trying to protect an area populated by civilians, a laser defense might be better.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Blast open the door with what? Why do you think a drone can carry more fire power then just some dude walking around?

      I weigh about 170 pounds. I can carry about 200 pounds short distances without a lot of trouble. If have to carry it long distances, then I'd like to keep the weight under 50 pounds.

      How many pounds do you think a drone can carry?

      A toy drone is not as threatening as you make it out to be especially if the thing is flying/hovering. If it is rolling around on wheels then it could perhaps pack some heavier weaponry. But even then its primary advantage would be disposability rather then per unit lethality. I'd bet on the humans every time in equal numbers versus little drones assuming the humans had weapons.

      Lets say the the drones were rolling around like those Saber drones. A single RPG would kill one of those easily. Which is cheaper... an RPG round or a saber drone? Same thing with a little flying drone.

      I can see those being used for recon and MAYBE an assassination or terrorist attack. But main line combat as an assault asset? Laughable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    20. Re:Flak by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually in WWII flak was most effective at high altitude and low altitude. It was medium altitude where it really failed. Targets moved too fast to track with large guns and small guns could not reach them. AAA really caught on when the US started to use proximity fuses and radar tracking. Before that you could fire hundreds of shells and not hit an aircraft. I suggest you read up on the development of the proximity fuse for more details..

      As to getting near the ground being death? Tell that to all the P-47, Typhoon, A-20 and IL-2 crews. Low and fast meant that AAA had less time to react and less firing arc.
      "And we're talking about little stupid toy drones that are going to operate at less then 500 feet probably. And you're telling me flak wouldn't kill a toy drone or be able to target it?"
      Sure it could and kill the friendlies that just happen to be under/around it. At sea this would not be an issue but over land it is a real issue.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    21. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Fine... whatever. I think I made my point. You disagree if you like... I'm bored now.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    22. Re:Flak by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      http://youtu.be/mKBNw4kfwNM?t=...

      Who is right? You or WW2 vet that actually flew missions in a B17?

      I'll go with the vet, thanks.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    23. Re:Flak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AAAs used by the US Navy however, worked pretty well against Japanese war plane due to the use of proximity fuse.
      Swiss made Skyshield is the short range modern equivalent of that, and is perfect for destroying drone-swarms.
      See this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0oHvqIUEmY

    24. Re:Flak by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Humm Let's see Flak was ripping through the Airplane... It was terrible...
      He did not say it was effective. And the fact that about the highest per mission looses of US bomber in Europe was around 10% so all that FLAK missed over 90% of the targets. It is over 90% because that includes losses to fighters. By 1944 when the Mustang started providing escorts for the entire mission looses became a fraction of that.
      I don't consider a weapon that hits less then 5% of aircraft flying straight and level to be effective.
      Maybe you have some I don't know... Data?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  25. DEW/ADS system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would integrate components for tracking, directed energy, ECM and active defense. The tracking component would use radar/radar/radio-direction finding to locate the threats. The DEW component will have wide beam and narrow beam emitters. The wide beam will attempt to blind swarms coming from all directions while the narrow beam tries to defeat individual drone units. Software will analyze threat and prioritize targets for the beams. Once the drone enters a certain range, the system activates a GPS jammer to defeat satellite guidance and pops smoke to defeat optically or laser-guided drone swarms. If drones still penetrate this layer, explosive reactive armor, similar to ADS detonates at the swarm.

    1. Re: DEW/ADS system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant radar/radar. Once a drone is identified, a secondary ladar is used for precision tracking.

    2. Re: DEW/ADS system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, autocorrect keeps changing L-A-D-A-R to radar

  26. Test them in Ukraine today... by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ukrainian troops fighting in the East of the country suffer a great deal from the separatists' Russia-provided drones — those transmit signals to Russian artillery right across the border, which then targets Ukrainians with devastating precision. If they could kick those drones out of the sky, life would become much easier.

    It would seem, any counter-measure America can help with could be field-tested right away — all without hurting a single human enemy.

    How to do it? I used to think, small rockets could be used. Miniaturized copies of the early SAMs, created by the long declassified designs — current generation of drones aren't really made for evading such a thing...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would seem, any counter-measure America can help with could be field-tested right away — all without hurting a single human enemy.

      Yeah, tested by the Russians after after being sold to them for 2 bags of potatoes.

      How to do it? I used to think, small rockets could be used. Miniaturized copies of the early SAMs, created by the long declassified designs — current generation of drones aren't really made for evading such a thing...

      I was thinking rockets too, but just the opposite. If the drones were explosive laden and programmed for a kamikaze mission, why not rocket power them for their final approach? One plane could drop 1,000 small drones from high altitude sporadically within a mile of the target, then the drones come in from arbitrary angles, at the same time, doing mach 2. Defend against that.

    2. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      How to do it? I used to think, small rockets could be used. Miniaturized copies of the early SAMs, created by the long declassified designs — current generation of drones aren't really made for evading such a thing...

      The problem with fighting $500 drones with $100,000 missiles is that your enemy can drain you financially very quickly. This is the same mistake that the IDF has made with the Iron Dome: the thing is so expensive that, barring loss of life, it would cost less to just repair whatever damage the Hamas missiles do rather than to shoot them down.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 99% of hamas missiles fall down to some farm field, wilderness, and do not do any damage at all.
      So the iron dome is actually useless. But good at one thing - defence industry pork money.

    4. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by dotancohen · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One fell right outside my house. My building and all the surrounding buildings took damage. Every vehicle on the street was destroyed. Luckily, the alarms sounded and everyone outside was in a shelter at the time (including myself and my family) so there were no human injuries..

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by mi · · Score: 1

      The problem with fighting $500 drones with $100,000 missiles

      You got the equation wrong. Your numbers may be in the ballpark for the IDF vs. Arabs situation — where the cheap but fast-traveling unguided missiles require expensive and sophisticated interception.

      The military drones cost a lot more than $500 — they require avionics, reliable remote control, cameras with decent optics, etc. They are also flying a lot slower and so can be intercepted much easier — by a much cheaper missile. Oh, and you can launch many of such missiles at a single drone with relative impunity, whereas Iron Dome must carefully consider, where the fragments will fall in both cases of successful and failed interception.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by mi · · Score: 1

      And 99% of hamas missiles fall down to some farm field, wilderness, and do not do any damage at all.

      A bold-faced lie — by an anonymous asshole, no less. The statistics of Iron Dome's effectiveness are being discussed all over the net. The site of consensus cites the following numbers:

      In November 2012, during Operation Pillar of Defense, the Iron Dome's effectiveness was estimated by Israeli officials at between 75 and 95 percent. According to Israeli officials, of the approximately 1,000 missiles and rockets fired into Israel by Hamas from the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense up to 17 November 2012, Iron Dome identified two thirds as not posing a threat and intercepted 90 percent of the remaining 300. During this period the only Israeli casualties were three individuals killed in missile attacks after a malfunction of the Iron Dome system.

      So, 2/3rds — not 99% — were deemed not worth intercepting. 270 of the remaining 300 were intercepted. If the thirty rockets, that did get through managed to kill 3 Israelis between them, it is fair to extrapolate, that — without the system in place — the 30 would've been killed.

      But good at one thing - defence industry pork money.

      Yeah, yeah. Unable to defeat Israel on the battlefields of real wars, the whining Arab pussies have switched to terrorism and propaganda. Trying to convince American taxpayers, their monetary help to Israel is being wasted, is part of the latter.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      Your anecdote really isn't an argument. 99% falling uselessly astray implies 1% that reach their intended targets. I'm glad you and your family were unharmed.

    8. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I see. They only intended to kill men, women and children, but they were incompetent and only succeed once in a while, so that's ok?

    9. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      You do have a good point. I wonder how lopsided the drone / antidrone equation really is.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by mi · · Score: 1

      I wonder how lopsided the drone / antidrone equation really is.

      According to this article, Western military drones cost $200K apiece (ballpark — I'm sure, the price-range is wide). Russian ones are, probably, half that. Ukrainians are making their own at $60K.

      Whatever it is, the cost of a single military drone is tens of thousands.

      Now, a hand-held Stinger — capable of bringing down a real aircraft with a pilot fighting for his life — is quoted on Wikipedia costing $38K (though it is unclear, which year dollars those are). That's decidedly less than a drone already.

      Considering that a) the anti-drone missiles don't need to be as powerful and strong as Stingers; b) things made in Ukraine (or Russia for that matter) tend to cost a lot less, a usable missile can, probably, be produced for "only" several thousand dollars apiece.

      But even if the US made them — and gave to Ukraine — it would still be good bang for the buck, achieving a valuable military objective without giving Russia too much to protest about, because this new weapon would be "non-lethal".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it is not alright however whilst i cannot prove it previous experience ie, anti scuds etc show the successful performance of these system is always exagerated .

    12. Re:Test them in Ukraine today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, as an American taxpayer, I think our aid to Israel is wasted, or at least unwise. I don't see why we're paying for any country's defense besides our own. I think our military budget is too large and I'm tired of us being the world's police. The Pax Americana has been useful, but we're getting to the point where we need to pull back a bit and let someone else either take over or at least help us out.

  27. Drone wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the bit about using "drones against enemies who have no defense against them" (they ARE our enemies, after all), I think that this could potentially become very interesting. I can imagine a future when both sides of a conflict have drones that they use for combat, scouting, etc., and that those drones are constantly being upgraded with more powerful AI in order to combat the other side's increasingly more powerful AI in dogfights.

    In fact, such a thing could be done as a contest. Get together two teams of programmers and have them write code for a battalion of drones, then unleash those drones on each other. Might be fun.

    1. Re: Drone wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a real war a smart enemy would kill your programmers. The aim is to win, not to engage in a contest. But since the US seems to have a thing about getting into wars it doesn't know how to properly fight...

  28. And yet somehow by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1
    1. Re:And yet somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hollywood predicted the future.

      That movie was so horrible it almost makes me wish Robin Williams had started his autoerotic asphyxiation fetish a few decades earlier.

    2. Re:And yet somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you don't understand that movie was fantasy doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

      Go back to watching boring movies where everything has to be 100% real.

  29. The wars of the future... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    Sounds familiar:

    "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

    Thank you."

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  30. How about lasers / radar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hear the U.S. Army has a fairly powerful laser which can cut steel... I wouldn't think it too hard for them to mount it on a computer aimed turret that just hits anything the radar sees that is of a particular size. Obviously you would only turn that setup on when you need it, but I would think one really fast turret might protect a whole city of mounted on a tall building (and assuming they get a really smart targeting algorithm that minimizes collateral)

    1. Re: How about lasers / radar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rheinmetall is way ahead with a laser that can destroy artillery rounds in the air. Stop believing US tech is the best: it isn't.

  31. Drones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do they mean? The cheesy plastic quadcopters that every hobby store carries? Seems a simple garden hose should take care of those.

    What is a drone to the Army? Something bigger? Maybe a firehose?

    1. Re:Drones? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is a drone to the Army? Something bigger?
      It depends on who has to be sold on the emerging drone threat.
      Aeronautical engineers in South America could be working on stealthy new drones to fly in drugs. AWACS might not see that new drug drone.
      A stealthy glider is released and allows a drone like control system to fly in wealthy illegal immigrants every night.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Drones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they need drones, when they already have Colorado?

    3. Re:Drones? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      What is a drone to the Army? Something bigger?

      Everything from smaller than a hand grenade, all the way up to ones bigger than a Cessna.

      The small ones are intended to be used tactically in the field, the large ones are more for collecting strategic data.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  32. Re: hey, no fairsies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you suggesting the military overthrow the US government?

  33. Food for Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's stopping terrorist organisations from purchasing drones attaching explosives to them and flying them directly into densely populated areas from the comfort of their own vehicle?... now imagine 100, 200, 500, 1000+ drones flying into cities with explosives strapped to them guided by GPS to blow up at specific locations. GG

    These drones wouldn't be picked up by radar and wouldn't be seen as a threat by other people as they are too common now a days. I bet you a million dollars the moment this happens you'll not only have all countries ban drones but push and win to exterminate any remaining rights we have.

  34. How do you discriminate between a bird and a drone by fatmatt_oz · · Score: 1

    Is there an easy way for a machine or person to remotely and quickly work out whats a drone and whats a bird? Working out how to knock something relatively small out of the sky seems to me to be the easy part.

  35. Re:How do you discriminate between a bird and a dr by jtara · · Score: 1

    Birds do not have rotors.

  36. fighter: F-; Fighter, multiplace: FM-; Fighter, ul by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Fighter planes are designated F-xx
    FM- means fighter, multi place
    So Fighter, Ultralight must be ...

  37. Think big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Killing individual drones or even swarms is purely a last-ditch defense. The best solution is to kill the control centre and the drone operators. You don't win the air war by shooting down planes, you win it by bombing the enemy airfields.

  38. Saiga 12 + PKM machine gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze6HPdD77Dg

    You could make a 12 gauge belt fed shotgun. It was done with the MG42 and the AK47. Same idea scaled up to the PKM mechanism.

  39. Re:How do you discriminate between a bird and a dr by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Hope that every drone has a huge, hot, heavy engine that designers did not think to try and hide.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  40. my brother designed one 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at the time it was designed to shoot people in the head, on the grounds outside of an embassy, but with a small tweak, it could easily target drones.

  41. weapons to destroy swarm of drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple - I just need a few hundred millions

    Who's going to fund me ? :)

  42. Great! by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

    Drones against drones seems to be finally the right way to spend military expenditures. Anything is better than continuing to use drones against innocent people in deliberate political killings on souvereign foreign soil conducted outside of police authority, judicial oversight and jurisdiction and violating ratified human rights chartas.

  43. Robotic warfare by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No doubt, these drones will be more and more automatic, where commands from their human controllers become more and more abstract. Maybe now they're being flown like an RC aircraft, soon it'll be "go to this location, launch bomb to hit that location", or "fly search patterns in this area and shoot anything that doesn't respond to your coded signals out of the sky".

    And so, step by step, we enter the era of robotic warfare. No matter how often the various militaries and politicians pledge that this will not happen.

    1. Re:Robotic warfare by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      No doubt, these drones will be more and more automatic, where commands from their human controllers become more and more abstract. Maybe now they're being flown like an RC aircraft, soon it'll be "go to this location, launch bomb to hit that location", or "fly search patterns in this area and shoot anything that doesn't respond to your coded signals out of the sky".

      And so, step by step, we enter the era of robotic warfare. No matter how often the various militaries and politicians pledge that this will not happen.

      Neil Stephenson brought this idea right down to nano level in The Diamond Age

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    2. Re:Robotic warfare by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      soon it'll be "go to this location, launch bomb to hit that location",

      Actually, in this case 'soon' would be '10 years ago'. 30+ if you include 'suicidally launch yourself at the target and detonate' for cruise missiles.

      They can already be programmed to taxi, take off, fly a patrol route, return, land, and taxi back to their parking spot.

      Right now the biggest thing preventing the automatic launching of bombs is the desire to keep humans in the equation.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  44. Re:hey, no fairsies! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I said this earlier when you hate enough, you can make anything fit into and confirm your hatred. It's a shame slashdot is headed into the fever swamps. I enjoyed the site for many years.

  45. Already invented. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    There's this machine that can shoot lots of mosquitoes out of the air with lasers.
    Just upgrade the lasers.

    1. Re:Already invented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this machine that can shoot lots of mosquitoes out of the air with lasers.
      Just upgrade the lasers.

      And the sharks.

    2. Re:Already invented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bit of string deployed directly above the target by an interceptor drone does the trick apparently:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11350856/Being-pestered-by-drones-Buy-a-drone-hunting-drone.html

    3. Re:Already invented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this machine that can shoot lots of mosquitoes out of the air with lasers.

      At least, there's a patent on such a device. The devices themselves don't exist, and can't be bought.

  46. Re: hey, no fairsies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that the US creates the conditions for the oppression and in many cases installs the oppressor into power, right? See: the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noreiga, just about anybody who rules the Phillippines, much of Central and South America (read General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" for that one), much of the rest of the Middle East, etc.

    If you're a dictator who will be friendly with US business, we're all over helping you. We only pull out the "oppressed people" card or the "terrorist threat" when some dictator decides to not do business with us (again, see Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega).

    The US has an absolutely awful history on human rights in the world, and people like you who believe the propaganda are a huge part of the problem.

    Your average American would not condone this behavior--if they knew of it. The government and corporate media make sure it's downplayed and have for decades. The result is usually when you present proof to an indoctrinated person they go deeper into denial. That's the US in a nushell.

  47. No need emp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://rt.com/news/201795-china-drone-defense-laser/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819990/China-unveils-anti-terror-laser-cannon-shoot-drones-mile-away-100-accuracy.html

    http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/03/drone-wars/

    http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/3/7149315/china-is-shooting-down-drones-with-lasers

    Take you pick !

  48. Cue Yoda by Firemouth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Begun the Drone War has.

    1. Re:Cue Yoda by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I read the comments solely to find this quote. I'm surprised it was so far down.

      --
      -DwS
  49. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some sort of anti-air battery?

  50. Re: hey, no fairsies! by murdocj · · Score: 2

    Ah yes, the old "the USA is responsible for despots everywhere" argument. I'm curious... please cite the country that has this spotless record on human rights, and has altruistically advanced such rights everywhere, regardless of their own interest? Obviously any country in Europe, Russia, China, Japan, etc are out. So I'm waiting with bated breath for this shining example to the world.

    In fact, please cite ANY country throughout history that has had the kind of international power the USA has had and has been as civil and restrained as the USA has been. You're going to struggle with that one.

  51. Old school AA by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The solutions presented seem overly complex and over engineered to me.

    Given shotgun are effective against small fast targets like birds I would expect a rapid fire automatic shotgun to be at least effective against the small & miniature infantry support drones. Also using air burst ammo for existing grenade launchers.

    Against larger drones then use rapid fire AA guns with air burst cannon shells.

    1. Re:Old school AA by mveloso · · Score: 1

      Drones can fly fast and fly low. If you can detect something flying fast and low from background noise and target it, that's great. If there are 30 of them flying fast right at you, that's a harder problem.

      If there are 50 of them (they're cheap), then you're SOL.

      If there are 100 of them (for redundancy) coming at you from all directions, then you're totally SOL.

      Again, you only need a parrot-sized drone to do damage. Those can really go fast, especially if you don't care if they come back.

  52. The Drone War has begun ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mech evolution in action anyone?

  53. Re:Upgrade path by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    So, something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  54. And coming up close behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skynet, getting ready in a military research center near you soon...

  55. "Wealthy illegal immigrants"??? by voss · · Score: 1

    Wealthy people get visas. Really wealthy people can buy them.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
     

  56. War. War never changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "More interesting, the Army proposal also notes that it might be mounted on UAVs, which raises the possibility of using drones to shoot down other drones."

    Sounds exactly like the kind of situation that arose in the early days of WWI ; when the enemy started using observer planes, it was natural to arm your observer planes so you could shoot down the other. Then you started getting more weapons to shoot down the armed ones. Resulting in WWI dogfights.

    Throwback to 1914 is what I say.

  57. Jamming won't work for long by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Current generation maybe, but eventually these will aquire the same autonomous capabilities that cruise missiles have, only they'll be a lot more nimble.

    Some decent planning and either satellite imagery or on the ground surveillance and you can simply pre-plot the flight path. Want to take it a step further, outfit the units with more cruise missile tech like TERCOM or DSMAC.

    Sure current gen cruise missiles can use GPS and / or satellite guidance via the tail fin cameras they carry, but they work pretty well without it and you won't be launching drones from a thousand miles out.

    Short distance route planning is a whole lot easier to do.

  58. Re: hey, no fairsies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    _ USA has had and has been as civil and restrained as the USA has been_

    You are kidding, are you?
    US installed the bolshevik jewish communist in russia, they installed the communists in china, they installed the communists in a lot of places.
    And when Hungary wanted independence from the CCCP, the white house sent a telegram to moscow, saying that "usa does not like the independent, anti-communist reqimes near CCCP border" ... You can find and read the telegram in library on congress.

  59. Easy Solution by jjhues7676 · · Score: 1

    Technology is already here, it is called signal jamming. Just jam the frequencies that are in the area.

  60. Re:Great! Battle Bots! by retroworks · · Score: 1

    We could just start an Olympics of Battlebots and invite every country to send its drones, duke it out in a stadium, with pre-arranged real estate ante. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Gently reply
  61. The U.S. Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wants weapons that disable highly destructive weapons. And then it wants weapons that are even more destructive than those weapons. But don't worry... 'We're the Good Guys (TM)"

  62. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use a GPS jammer.

    For a swarm to work it needs to be cheap.
        This should pretty much makes it dependent on GPS.

    The interesting question is how much did the military spend to figure out what to do?

  63. Thus the ultimate folly of arms races by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Why not just build robots to do all the work instead, so we were not using drones to prop up repressive social orders based on wage slavery?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    "Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  64. rail guns and lasers by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, they need lower joule rail gun that can fire lots. It does not need to shoot 100 miles, but only 10 miles. BUT, it needs to shoot a larger numbers of rounds, more like a Gatling or Phalanx gun. And for further out, laser.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  65. Just use a smart bomb by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Drone swarms got you down? Use your smart bomb. Just be sure you are close enough when pod intersection happens or you might miss part of the swarm.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  66. Tactical EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An EMP might not work - because a drone don't have to be electric in nature. An EMP have no effect on the WWII V2 weapon, for example. A simple fuel-powered engine (no electronics). Guidance by mechanical gyroscope and mechanical clock.

    Also, electronics not involved in communication can be shielded. Instead of radio, use laser or other light for comm. A surveillance drone don't necessarily need communication - it can fly a preprogrammed path and bring home a movie recorded from inside a faraday cage.

  67. Altitudinally challenged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A third-world drone would easily go 500 km/h, which is a bit faster than a bicycle. A drone built for speed is easy - start with good rc plane . . .

  68. Balloons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but why not surround the installations to be protected with balloons tethered by parachute cord?

    Anything trying to fly through a wall of string is bound to have issues (you may need a couple of layers since you could always just try and drive another one through the gap the first one made.

    Actually, scrap that idea, someone will just build a drone with wire cutters on the front like the bat-wing had.

  69. A net? by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

    So... like a big net? Or... if they are all propeller based, why not some sticky nasty gunk that you can spray all over them? Block the optics, add mass and hopefully cook the motors. Or better yet...a big sticky net.

    --
    X
  70. Iron Dome by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    So, 2/3rds — not 99% — were deemed not worth intercepting. 270 of the remaining 300 were intercepted. If the thirty rockets, that did get through managed to kill 3 Israelis between them, it is fair to extrapolate, that — without the system in place — the 30 would've been killed.

    Not to support the AC's figure, but Hamas rockets tend to be erratic, there's always some uncertainty as to their impact point. Especially when you're deciding whether to intercept well before impact.

    So, logically speaking, some portion of the 1/3rd they decide to engage would also land in a spot that wouldn't cause damage they care enough about to justify the expense of interception, but because the impact uncertainly zone contains stuff they DO care about, they intercept anyways.

    So you could have a situation where they let it go when the uncertainty zone's center is 1 mile from anything they care about, but intercept when it's within .5 miles, even though there's still a 90% chance it won't hit anything they care about.

    That being said, I agree that more would be killed without the system in place, making it effective. Cost effective might be a different matter.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  71. Re: hey, no fairsies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Propaganda works both ways buddy. The world creates conditions for oppression, and to single out the US as the reason for it is facetious.

  72. Frickin' Laser Beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the heads of something. Don't think it will be sharks, but something with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

  73. Goalkeeper by maestroX · · Score: 1

    If it can disable missiles, it should be sufficient for drones.

  74. Stargate Episodes by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Why does this sound like one of the several episodes of Stargate Universe at the end of the series?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  75. EMP drone? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    Why not just equip a drone with an EMP, fly into the swarm, fzzzt, dead drones drop from the sky.

  76. Polis Haber by kamuhaber · · Score: 1

    Thanks all friends. My website us army and police news polis haber go to polishaber.net

    --
    Kamuhaber.net webmaster.