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.

8 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. 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. 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?...

  5. 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...

  6. 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."