Drones and how to kill them?

If the launch platform is like, 5km from each other defense may be impossible, thus MAD is the likely result. However the natural response is to increase the range of the drones so you destroy the opponent launch platform first.

Launch platforms can be *anything,* including a box on a donkey. Buried emplacements like mines, waiting for the right moment to spring out. Dropped from 80,000 feet by balloons or growed-up sailplanes. Packages delivered like Uber Eats.

As for soldiers, they have no reason to be anywhere outside of tunnels when drone and other robotic warfare is developed, and they'd be removed if tunnel navigating robots are developed.
It'll be a while before robots can do the job of occupying enemy territory that soldiers can.
 
Range will be the reason why defensive swarms can work.

If the launch platform is like, 5km from each other defense may be impossible, thus MAD is the likely result. However the natural response is to increase the range of the drones so you destroy the opponent launch platform first. At 30km the drones are significantly bigger and expensive so all defenses becomes more viable.

There will be a technological-environmental determined equilibrium in vehicle ranges, where offense and defense is in equilibrium: in which increasing the range means inability to cost effective penetrate defenses, while decreasing range means enemy offense can penetrate your own defenses before you can attack.

As for soldiers, they have no reason to be anywhere outside of tunnels when drone and other robotic warfare is developed, and they'd be removed if tunnel navigating robots are developed.
You could deploy them in hives, so they act like mines as the enemy approaches, but with a swarm of high explosive insects. You could even deploy them via parachute off glide bombs.

Post #794 and #795 may be relevant.
 
Last edited:
If so, only briefly. Soon enough there will be *swarms* of slaughterbots. You could easily deploy 10,000 of them from a van or an aircraft, each just smart enough to attack a single human. You won't defeat those with thrilling aerial dogfights by defensive slaughterbots, unless defensive drones are deployed in superior numbers. it might become necessary for each solider on a battlefield, and then every civilian *near* a conflict, to carry a backpack loaded with def-drones that launch on a split second notice and hover about you at a range of a few yards.

Advanced versions of quadcopters like this might carry a gram of Semtex, easily enough to perforate your noggin.

View attachment 734436


Twenty bucks just isn't that much for a reasonably reliable anti-individual weapon.
Okay, yes, those will be weird to deal with.

I think I'd put an explosively triggered EMP generator on the defensive swarm, however. Especially if I can then recover the defense drones afterwards instead of having to deal with a couple grams of SEMTEX sending drone fragments everywhere.
 
Okay, yes, those will be weird to deal with.

If they weigh one ounce each (~28 grams), one percent of them result in a kill, and when purchased in bulk they cost five bucks each, a swarm of 10,000 would weigh 625 pounds and would cost $50,000. You could easily carry the swarm in a decent sized car and they'd kill 100 people and injure many more. All for the price of a few stolen automobiles.

Now, 625 pounds of semtex would doubtless cost much less than $50,000 and could conceivable kill about 100 when used as a carbomb or series of them. But the swarm would present a special horror of its own (especially if the AI system controlling them can discriminate and target individuals based on race, sex, age, eye color, clothing, etc.) and, unlike a car bomb, would be able to infiltrate structures. And in that case, a densely populated structure - a theater, school, hospital, station, etc. - would doubtless increase the kill efficiency. It's not unreasonable to assume kill percentages getting close to 100%.

"Weird" won't begin to cover it.

I think I'd put an explosively triggered EMP generator on the defensive swarm, however.
I'd question how effective such a system would be. And if the defensive system is setting off a series of non-stop explosions, how many people will that system kill all by its lonesome?
 
If so, only briefly. Soon enough there will be *swarms* of slaughterbots. You could easily deploy 10,000 of them from a van or an aircraft, each just smart enough to attack a single human.
How resistant will those 10,000 cheap swarm drones be to EW like HPM or lasers? And all you really need to stop drones like those are a net - have 4-10 defense drones raise a net between them and you'll catch most of those little FPV drones. Other defenses could be sonic generator guns, EMP generators, defensive ramming drones. The biggest issue I see with combating this type of swarm would be if its released inside a city - those before mentioned defenses will be difficult to use inside a city at a moments notice.

If such swarms happens, a likely outcome will be governments banning non registered drone use during times of war - and setting up permanent drone defenses in cities. If a non registered drone is used it will be engaged by the defenses and destroyed.
 
How resistant will those 10,000 cheap swarm drones be to EW like HPM or lasers?
Probably not very. But you'll need to have such systems available *everywhere* in vast abundance.


And all you really need to stop drones like those are a net - have 4-10 defense drones raise a net between them and you'll catch most of those little FPV drones.

How big is that net, when you're trying to defend against a swarm sized to take out a stadium or every human in a field? And if four drone are your defense... it will only take one or two drone to take enough of *them* out to make the net worthless. Attack-drones can be zippy little nightmares; the net-drones will necessarily be relatively stationary targets.

If such swarms happens, a likely outcome will be governments banning non registered drone use during times of war

Yeah, but it won't matter. Nations that ban civilian firearm ownership are hardly safe against an invading army; banning drones won't help you when dealing with people intent on massacre. *Eventually* 3d printers will be able to print if not the whole thing, at least most of it.
fbf9ae1dfad765a4876aceaee040b645b95ce5be.gif
 
How big is that net, when you're trying to defend against a swarm sized to take out a stadium or every human in a field? And if four drone are your defense... it will only take one or two drone to take enough of *them* out to make the net worthless. Attack-drones can be zippy little nightmares; the net-drones will necessarily be relatively stationary targets.


Yeah, but it won't matter. Nations that ban civilian firearm ownership are hardly safe against an invading army; banning drones won't help you when dealing with people intent on massacre. *Eventually* 3d printers will be able to print if not the whole thing, at least most of it.
One net does not have to cover the whole area. You could potentially even have an electric charge going across the net so it acts like an electric fence and the defensive drones drag it catching and disabling a large number of small attack drones. And nothing is stopping the defender from using 100 to 10,000 drones in their net defense, just like the attacker is using 10,000 drones in their attack. Heck each defense drone could shoot out a capture net instead of it being a drag net.

The point of banning non registered drone use isn't to stop an invading army or terrorist. The point is when the defense system detects a drone in the air and it is not authorized - it is automatically engaged no questions asked. So whatever defense system you have for these swarms is used automatically. I don't care if you can 3d print the whole drone and use it, the point is when its detected it is taken out no questions asked. So when the drone swarm is released in a city you have a system capable of handling it.
 
The point is when the defense system detects a drone in the air and it is not authorized - it is automatically engaged
Yeah, that's a problem. I don't doubt that such a system could be employed (or at least legally mandated), but a government that is "we will prosecute with prejudice anything we haven't approved" is a government you do NOT want to live under. They could never keep up with the tech anyway. Right now a "nano" drone fits in your palm, weighs about an ounce. We're not far from bumblebee sized. Then fly. Then skeeter. A bot the size and even form of a mosquito that can live for maybe an hour and can inject, say, AIDS or Ebola into three or four people is not that far away. Such things could be stamped out by the millions, enough to infect an entire nation in a day.

DOOOOOOOOOM.

What's the best way to defend against drones? Get the frak offworld. The Scattering is our best and, really, only hope against the myriad of existential threat that are coming our way. But in the mean time, *something* will have to be done, but damned if I know what.
 
Yeah, that's a problem. I don't doubt that such a system could be employed (or at least legally mandated), but a government that is "we will prosecute with prejudice anything we haven't approved" is a government you do NOT want to live under.
It all depends on when and where they put up a No drone flying zone. Willy nilly in peace time you have a point, wartime though?

Wartime alot of privileges get revoked with warnings of course. Like in WW2 there was stories of people getting arrested or worse shot by drunkly wondering into a military base by mistake. That's was in the western Allies mind you.


As is the US military already have a solid control of basically every military base Airspace. 2/3s of the Air Guard job is chasing idiots off in Cessna from military ranges.

And the MPs already half the need authority to zap any drone coming near a military installation, just needs general approve, and that can be down grade fast.

That's the nice end of the spectrum.

Theres countries in western Europe that will grab the down drone flying near a military base, finds out who owns it and kick in their door to "politely" ask questions.

The frame works already there and ready for more meat to get added, idiots and others continuing to give reasons for.
 
It all depends on when and where they put up a No drone flying zone. Willy nilly in peace time you have a point, wartime though?

Wartime alot of privileges get revoked

Thing is, drone tech right now is largely "war." Drone tech in the near future will be "terrorism." Imagine if Al Queda had had the drone swarm slaughterbot tech being discussed. Instead of crashing planes into the WTC, they could have simply parked a few vans in/near the building and slaughtered 40,000 people in a matter of minutes. Depending on the level of control tech they'd had, they could have programmed the drones to murder everyone *but* people holding cameras. End result would have been a *lot* of horrifying videos, and that's assuming that the drone themselves didn't broadcast everything worldwide in real time.

Hell, with the AI systems we have now, they could've used facial recognition to ID 90% of the victims. And then send The Last Moment Of John Doe videos to everyone on John Does contact list.

You get *one* incident like that and the government will government and they;ll clamp down drone tech to Amish levels... but only for the law abiding.
 
With the assassination attempt on Trump today, it raises the obvious thought that some day soon we'll see assassination attempts on major national "leaders" via drone swarms. Given the spectacular failure of the Secret Service today to properly prepare for a conventional attempt, how they'd deal with something utterly new can be only grimly guessed at.
 
These pointy EW guns don't look too succesful.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HTYbJSJb3I


I have seldom seen a weapon system so badly designed (Jam gun).
Great we have today those images available to the general public.

Notice that the guard with the black helmet is probably supposed to be on station on the elevated stand (you can see that they are not scaffolds or elevated passageway, and have a backrest directed toward the tanks meant to be protected).

The only thing lacking in this movie is the guy from the startup advertising falconry against UAS [/Irony]
 
Last edited:
I can see ways the avoid the dazzlers, though. IIRC blue and green are the two favored colors for dazzlers, both of which have very specific wavelengths. Set up your camera to ignore all light at those laser freqs and you're not blind until the heat buildup overloads the camera. You can do that with lens coatings or on the chip itself. Or both.
 
I can see ways the avoid the dazzlers, though. IIRC blue and green are the two favored colors for dazzlers, both of which have very specific wavelengths. Set up your camera to ignore all light at those laser freqs and you're not blind until the heat buildup overloads the camera. You can do that with lens coatings or on the chip itself. Or both.
Wouldn't that also work with DIRCM though, assuming it was possible? The counter could also be easily countered by shifting frequency with the dazzler.
 
Wouldn't that also work with DIRCM though, assuming it was possible? The counter could also be easily countered by shifting frequency with the dazzler.
Possibly, though DIRCM may be using an IR-freq laser, which would be harder to design a seeker around ignoring.

The blue and green dazzlers are pretty tightly frequency-bound, though, just the nature of how those lasers are generated. For example, my blue laser says 405+-10nm for frequency range. Make a lens that is opaque between 420-390nm, blue-purple dazzlers are going to be completely ineffective.
 
I don't think it's possible to harden drones this small from microwaves while keeping them cheap and small. Poor bloody infantry will have to work closer than ever with their vehicle support in the coming years.
 
With improvement in lasers tech, just about every vehicle can fit pretty powerful blinding lasers if warcrimes is not a problem.

The end result of all this is not the removal of low cost, high payload means of moving stuff: "vehicles", but the end of infantry as the entire battlespace is filled with systems that can neutralize infantry with ease.

All it takes is someone to pull something off something like unrestricted submarine warfare.
----
Also today in counter drone warfare:
1721413105937744.jpg
 
DIRCM against imaging sensor (example):

Our paper investigates a means to increase the effectiveness of dazzle by modulating the laser at a rate close to the frame rate of the imaging sensor, i.e., a strobing effect. A continuous-wave quantum cascade laser (QCL) at 4.6 microns illuminated a mid-infrared focal plane array imager, modulated by either an optical chopper or by periodically varying the current of the QCL.

Cheap drone means standardized parts. It should then be possible to target a large aspect of drone camera with a single system.
 
With improvement in lasers tech, just about every vehicle can fit pretty powerful blinding lasers if warcrimes is not a problem.
Many people have figured out how to set the power for laser dazzlers based on detecting the reflection from eyes and then setting the laser output to just below the blinding threshold at that range. If they don't detect any eyes, it fires at full power.

More powerful lasers in dazzlers like those mean longer effective range to dazzle.


The end result of all this is not the removal of low cost, high payload means of moving stuff: "vehicles", but the end of infantry as the entire battlespace is filled with systems that can neutralize infantry with ease.

All it takes is someone to pull something off something like unrestricted submarine warfare.
I don't see a modern military doing that unless they are losing really, really badly. Existentially badly.

I much more expect the first users of drones in that way to be terrorists.


----
Also today in counter drone warfare:
View attachment 734964
A freaking side-by-side hunting shotgun?!? Good lord they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of equipment!
 
Drone advances




Owl vision
 
Last edited:
I much more expect the first users of drones in that way to be terrorists.
It is pretty easy to fit blinding lasers on a drone, and the hardware can be more accessible than explosives. Some really insane stuff is feasible even if it just dealing with say, gang disputes.

Its like no military or law enforcement is really prepared for this stuff. It'd really be a shock if someone mass this just like the current FPV situation.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom