Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High-Tech 'Bazooka' Fires a Net To Take Down Drones (bgr.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the foiled-again dept.

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.

6 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Just use a shotgun by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  2. Exactly 328.000 feet, not 1 inch more by germansausage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Exactly 328.000 feet, not 1 inch more by khchung · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Significant figures is probably too deep a concept to be taught to journalist majors.

      Ditto for the fact that using yards for meters would be better for approximate conversions.

      --
      Oliver.
  3. The FAA doesn't like such things by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  4. The article is about a drone... by tlambert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The article is about a drone... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EMP then.

      You mean like the ones we use to shoot down planes, because they have avionics systems too?

      Oh wait. We're not on "Scorpion" or "Mutant X" or "The Flash", and we're not "Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D."... we know that it takes a nuclear weapon or a massive amount of equipment, like at the Rocky Mountain Weapons Test Facility, because of the inverse square law...