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.

17 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

    1. Re:Just use a shotgun by Catmeat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree completely. drones are fairly delicate so even the finest grade of birdshot would do enough damage to bring one down. However gun laws make shotguns an issue in the UK. The police are generally happy to give out licenses to people without criminal records, who can prove a need for one, either for sport or for work.

      However, imagine there was a huge A-lister wedding happening at some outdoor location, like a remote Scottish castle. The organizers would be desperate to keep away the public's and the paparazzi's drones (there'll be a buyer for the pictures already lined up, who will want exclusivity).

      However, I would suspect there would be liability, police and major PR issues of they ringed the event with shotgun-armed security people. This kit is an alternative that seems just what's needed. Security would quietly bring down the pap's drone and hand it back to its owner, along with their profuse apologies for "accidentally" standing one it when it was being recovered.

    2. Re:Just use a shotgun by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Silly boy. You don't yell "heads up everyone!," you yell "Terrorist!"

      That way there's no question about your motives (you are saving these people from an attack), and if someone should accidentally be hit by debris, it's all in the name of security.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  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.
    2. Re:Exactly 328.000 feet, not 1 inch more by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      To be fair though, those same moms would freak out if their precious snowflake was 37.2 degrees C when they should only be 37 degrees C.

    3. Re:Exactly 328.000 feet, not 1 inch more by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      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.

      Have to remove mod point and want to point out something...

      Approximation is nice, but you are a bit off in number. What you said is that 1 yard is approximately equal to 1 meter. That's about 10% off. 1 meter is longer than 1 yard. Now let's see. 1 yard is 3 feet. 1 foot is 12 inches. 1 inch is around 2.54 cm. So 100 meter would be around 328 feet ((10000/2.54) / 12).

      TFA said it is about 100m which is already an approximation. If you approximate an approximation, it could lead to something difference (tend to be worse than better). In this case, 28 feet (~10%) to me is quite different...

  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. Amazing but... by jsse · · Score: 2

    Why not just intercepts the intruder drone with other drone?

  5. 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...

    2. Re:The article is about a drone... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 3, Informative

      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."
    3. Re:The article is about a drone... by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      No I think he doesn't mean EMP at all but something more like a HERF gun.

      Similar concept, cause a flood of EM waves that induce currents where currents should not be and cause sensitive, unshielded electronics to malfunction catastrophically.

      Not sure what the range on them is, but I would assume most drones are not that well shielded against something like this, and if they get close enough, it could even set their plastic bits on fire.... though... pretty sure at that range you could smack it with a broom handle.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re: The article is about a drone... by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      ...we're not "Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D."

      What are you, my shrink??I'll decide what I am and am not, thank you very much.

  6. "Once captured it can be..." by tlambert · · Score: 2

    "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!

  7. Useless against a swarm of cheap "wingman" drones. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?...

  8. Re:100m by linuxgurugamer · · Score: 2

    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