Slashdot Mirror
High-Tech 'Bazooka' Fires a Net To Take Down Drones (bgr.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The brainchild of U.K.-based OpenWorks Engineering, SkyWall 100 uses a compressed air launcher to fire smart projectiles at targeted drones. The system, which has a range of 328 feet, uses a high-tech scope to lock on to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). An onboard computer then tracks the target's flight path and calculates the trajectory required for the projectile to intercept either a hovering or flying drone. The canister-style projectile opens up when it reaches the drone and uses a net to capture the flying device. The projectile then deploys a parachute to bring the captured drone and the canister components safely back to the ground. "Once captured it can be impounded, forensically investigated or simply handed back with some words of education where appropriate," OpenWorks Engineering explained, adding that the risk of damaging the drone is also reduced.
1) Cheap
2) Birdshot won't kill anyone
3) You don't have to worry as much about the "return of property" or "educate the user" hassles afterword
I don't know why, but news organizations everywhere do this and it makes me want to stab them over and over with a fondue fork. Somebody said it had a range of about 100 m. Somebody else converted it to feet, without any thought that this was an approximate measurement. About 100 m is about 300 feet, or maybe about 350 feet, but it is not 328 feet.
Now that the FAA is referring to even tiny 9-ounce plastic toys as aircraft that require a permit to operate even for recreation, this introduces some conflicts. The FAA doesn't generally like interference with aircraft. In that context, downing a four pound GoPro-equipped UAS taking landscape photos isn't really any different than shooting down a Cessna. The FAA needs to sort out its language in this area.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why not just intercepts the intruder drone with other drone?
My drone can easily battle and take out rival drones.
"Once captured it can be impounded, forensically investigated or simply handed back with some words of education where appropriate," -- or words of apology, where appropriate.
my drone's better than yours. my drone's better 'cause it fires Take Down. my drone's better than yours.
Well that parachute won't work perfectly reliably, and you're shooting a projectile 100m which definitely WILL come down with a crunch, so that is a manslaughter charge and lawsuit waiting to happen.
Why wouldn't you simply follow the drone to its origin and charge the owner with whatever crime he's accused of committing, he then fights or accepts the charge in a court, you know... due process we use to call it in the good old days.
That stops any Community Support officer deciding that a drone watching a football match is an invasion of the football matches privacy. Shooting his net, it landing on some spectators, choking or blinding them.
Then have countermeasures available to deflect the anti-drone measure.
If caught, record and remotely save footage that helps identify the vandal who decided to take down a drone.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That sure looks like a really expensive 12 gauge shotgun.
A radio jammer would be better.
The article is about a drone, not about an RPV.
Yeah, I know: people who do not fly the things, and want everyone else to also not fly the things, can't tell the difference between a "drone" and a "remotely piloted vehicle".
Here's a clue: drones can operate autonomously or semiautonomously, and won't stop what they are doing if you try to jam the radio signals they aren't using when they are flying in autonomous mode, and will just switch to autonomous mode if they are operating semiautonomously and someone turns on a jammer.
And you know, if they were military drones, and they encountered a jammer, they might just target it and kamikaze.
"Once captured it can be..." reprogrammed and armed with explosives, in order to carry out a different mission than its owner intended. Yay, for capture devices!
All of these ideas are over engineered yet lame, do the designers even role play possible scenarios before starting on a design? Haven't any of them seen these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?... A $1000 solution that is countered by a swarm of $20 drones is useless. Wouldn't it be easier to have a way of deploying a large number of small cheap drones with tangle lines and pull-out parachutes? You just launch them one after the other until all of your targets are eliminated. Given the noise (both types) that comes from a drone they probably could be auto targeting too if they have a neural network trained to ignore their own noise profile, therefore moronic assumptions like the target not moving are not required. Nothing could get away from something as fast as this this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I just wonder when they will make the drone equivalent of a lowrider with extra bouncing capability to counter this...
Or at least, better variation on the same idea. (Think long web like strands:)
'The new three-hundred-and-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun,' Yossarian answered. 'It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air.'
- Catch 22, chapter 12
If my remote controlled helicopter happens to burst into flames when its blades get tangled in your net and lands on your bushes setting them on fire, don't blame me. It was operating normally until you interfered with it. Uncontrolled parachute drops are not a good thing. This thing is dangerous, especially if it just clips a drone and doesn't get entangled.
If someone accidentally tosses a ball into your yard you're not allowed to destroy it. If someone uses something like this against my helicopter I'll have you up on attempted theft charges or actual theft if you manage to get to it before I do.
Oh, well now that I read the article this device is just for police. It'll probably be illegal for us to have one. I one how long till they start selling missiles for it.
Diz iz
Damn, how many idiots hanging /. these days... this thread is completely owned by them. Imbeciles posting useless jokes. Sucks.
The system, which has a range of 328 feet
Wow, that's quite specific.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that 328 feet is what you get if you convert 100 metres to stoopid.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
well, I would suspect he was writing for most americans to read. Most americans don't understand the metric system, so, he did the conversion so the readers wouldn't have to. That being the case, what happens if the drone is 329 feet away? And I'm speaking as an american
High tech net...
Wouldn't there be a lot of situations where this would work better than a gun against people?
Especially at 300 feet away?
Not a drone operator's problem, just fly higher than 10o Meters.
A bazooka that shoots a net would be really cool for crows.
They would probably figure out the 100 meter rule faster than the drone operator.
I don't think this will fly. I shot a police drone out of the sky and they charged me. What would be different if I shot it out of the sky with this device? (The shot gun is cheaper:)
Add a sensor to the drone that sees the net coming. Program the drone to automatically dodge. Problem solved.
Why a parachute if all they're going to do is figure out who the idiot is that was flying the drone? You don't need to have the drone be in good condition to figure out who owns it.
If the drone happens to break as the result of its fall then maybe the idiot shouldn't have had the drone in the area in the first place.
But I'm sure someone will give an excuse why personal responsibility doesn't enter into the equation.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Then you could mount it on a drone!
Is this the apes hour topic? Or has everyone finally gotten enough drugs to saturate their abilitize?
to have something that locates/goes after the transmitter, not the drone.
Depends on what you are trying to block. This will not work in a military situation with thousands of small drones, sure, but maybe it's not their market.
This seems more targeted at "peeping" drones, i.e. a single individual (or a few people) having a single drone each with some video equipment. So a few rather big, rather expensive drones. It might work.
Next will be an anti drone-bazooka device.
that this weapon will be used against a person, or persons, in the commission of a crime. So, it is really likely to become available in the UK. .Not.