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.
You obviously don't work with these things. First, the actual linked article says "UAV", not "drone". Second, "drone" doesn't mean what you think it means. Drones (except possibly those that are intended to be targets for weapons combat tests) aren't actually "autonomous". And a jammer most definitely does have an impact. It may not mean the drone the stops functioning but it absolutely WILL mean that the drone leaves the area in all but a couple of instances.
And, as far as I know, after working with them for 20+ years now, there are no drones that would "kamikaze" a jammer. That's a ridiculous waste of resources. UAVs that lose radio comms resort to a return home function, or in a few cases a self destruct depending upon the situation and other airworthiness factors. None of them become bombs.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
If your car breaks as a result of a crash, is that a sign you shouldn't own one? No? I see.
Most small UAS platforms run on highly energetic and notoriously fragile LiPo batteries. Falling from even a few meters can be enough to damage them and potentially start a fire that can seriously damage (and even mostly consume) the device in question. If the operator is compliant with the FAA's silly new rules and has his Super Official No Really I Didn't Write Someone Else's On It FAA Registration Number written on the outside as mandated, a LiPo fire could easily destroy that bit of information. A slo-mo parachute-controlled crash would reduce the odds of that happening.
It's all academic, though. The FAA now considers these to be "aircraft," and federal law prohibits anyone (including the police) from interfering with the operations of a flight - by doing things like shooting at it or forcing it down. There are very, very limited circumstances in which that's allowed (think, flying your gyrocopter through the DC FRZ). But some dude taking landscape photos over a national park? No, the park ranger can't bazooka that down because you're not supposed to fly your 9-ounce toy in federally controlled wilderness. No more than they can shoot down a Cessna.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.