Drones and how to kill them?

It's acceptable as a "solution we have in stock and in production right now." I'd want the replacement C-UAS missile to be faster. And if we use the aircraft or vehicle ATGM as that solution, that's fine as well. In fact, I'd really like for the vehicle ATGM to be capable of C-UAS in addition to any purpose-designed missiles for the job.



Spendy though.
Not that spendy. Not like it's a Patriot or SM-6, or even an AIM-9X.
 
Makes you wonder whether the Zumwalt was right to give up its 57mm guns.

There's different arguments on both sides...

Obvious one is top weight, even in a fully powered unmanned turret the 30mm is something like 1/5 the weight of the Mk110 57mm.

Magazine capacity is an interesting discussion, since it usually takes a couple of 57mm rounds but 20ish 30mm rounds. If you have a guided 57mm round, that puts things down to a single round to down the target, but guided cannon rounds are expensive.

Effective engagement range is another interesting debate.
 
If you have a guided 57mm round, that puts things down to a single round to down the target, but guided cannon rounds are expensive.

Effective engagement range is another interesting debate.

I noticed the reports don't specify whether the Italians used Davide/Strales guided rounds, the 7 or 8 round burst suggests not. One good thing with most of the drones out there is you get more cycles of your shoot-look-shoot cycle than you would with a sea-skimming or high-diving anti-ship missile, and in an easier target environment.
 
DARTs are radio command guided, which is probably the cheapest form of guidance.
True, but it's still an order of magnitude more $$ than a dumb shell (or unguided with proximity fuze).

I guess the real question is how much those 50x330mm EAPS/CRAM rounds the US Army was looking at were planned to cost, if we got full production runs. Because I'd like to scale that shell up to 57x438mm for naval use.

Edit: had a following idea.

If you can keep the cost of a guided shell to right about 10x that of a proximity fuzed shell, that does interesting things to your magazine depth. For example, say it takes 7.5 proximity fuzed shells to kill a drone or missile, and only one guided shell. A guided shell kill is 33% more expensive than a prox shell kill, but you also go from 16 ready kills to 120 ready kills(!). "Swarm this *raises middle finger*!!!"
 
Last edited:
They will get quieter

And faster

Look out Elon

Good news
 
Last edited:
They will get quieter
In what direction does that work in though. My reading of it was that it only works in terms of the sound the operator hears, not the external noise on location.
 
Current drones are small and cheap. killing them needs expensive weapons designed to shoot down planes and missiles.
The Answer is simple, since most are subsonic a 20 or 30mm cannon should do.
If you’d want to be a bit more overkill, a Phalanx CIWS should work
 
How about a drone that splits into two drones extending a huge net as it does so?
 
How about a drone that splits into two drones extending a huge net as it does so?
Net guns were one of the first counter-drone technologies, no need for two drones.

And they already went airborne:

 

Seems to be a modern version of the WWII gyro sights, sight tracks the drone and generates an offset firing cue, taking the art out of guessing the lead.
View: https://x.com/astraiaintel/status/1766794520430010757?s=20
 
Net guns were one of the first counter-drone technologies, no need for two drones.

And they already went airborne:

My idea was to extend a very large net though.
 
How about a drone that splits into two drones extending a huge net as it does so?
Seems to me a high-speed, high-maneuverability "racing drone" that's able to shoot out strings would do the job. Get in front of or above the target, spew out some Spiderman webbing, watch it tangle the targets props and fall from the sky, repeat. Should be *cheap.*
 
Makes you wonder whether the Zumwalt was right to give up its 57mm guns.


View: https://x.com/alessionaval/status/1764213187929424294?s=20
I've always thought it was a dumb idea. The guns they replaced them with. . .well, they speak for themselves:

 
I see a lot of soldiers trying to shoot these things down and maybe we're missing a trick here. There's been a type of gun designed for shooting small flying objects around for a long time.
Shotguns are very limited in range, only 30-50 yards max.
 
Shotguns are very limited in range, only 30-50 yards max.
That may be enough to defend against a direct attack. Certainly a better probability of success than firing an AR and then throwing it at the drone.

Maybe also with proxity-fused air-bursting frag-12 rounds.
 
Last edited:
Meh. If shotgun is the shot term solution then teach every soldier this neat trick
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfMeEvT5YxU


With a pump shotgun, cuz semi-auto mag fed cost a hella lot more.

If it's anything more than a DJI flying directly at your troops with dynamite sticks taped atop, like a DJI with AI-based human recognition and an arm for dropping grenades for instance, just use dazzlers. Or IFV autocannons.
 
Maybe also with proxity-fused air-bursting frag-12 rounds.

There is nowhere near enough space in a 12-guage shell for a proximity fuze and a useful bursting charge. It took a fairly heroic bit of engineering to create the LW30 Prox, cramming a prox fuze into a 30x113 projectile.
 
I see a lot of soldiers trying to shoot these things down and maybe we're missing a trick here. There's been a type of gun designed for shooting small flying objects around for a long time.


View attachment 722796
Appears someone was listening, just the wrong one.

View: https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1774030122011496640?s=20
 
The Olympic/Paralympic scenario does raise the question about which counter-drone technologies can safely be used in a civilian environment. No kinetic solutions, no jammers, no high-energy / microwave weapons ....
 
The Olympic/Paralympic scenario does raise the question about which counter-drone technologies can safely be used in a civilian environment. No kinetic solutions, no jammers, no high-energy / microwave weapons ....
A crashing drone is a hazard too TBH. I actually saw a Russian drone that uses a net to catch the other drone and fly away with it. For Olympic purposes, that would probably be safest.

View: https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1774044071423627467?s=20
 

1711815725703.png

Right now, his office is evaluating 10-, 20-, 50- and 300-kilowatt options for a wide variety of threats and missions. The 300-kilowatt laser is designed for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability, which is a system that will use kinetic, laser and high-powered microwave weapons to destroy threats including rockets, artillery, mortars, drones and cruise missiles. The Army is to receive that laser weapon next year.
 
The Olympic/Paralympic scenario does raise the question about which counter-drone technologies can safely be used in a civilian environment. No kinetic solutions, no jammers, no high-energy / microwave weapons ....
Jammers will annoy everyone trying to connect via wifi (blocking a lot of wifi signals).

Lasers and microwaves will be pointed at the sky, the only danger would be falling drones/parts.

Kinetic solutions are also likely out, both for "scaring the muggles" reasons when they go bang and for falling fragments.

Big FPV drones with a net to capture unauthorized drones is probably the safest option there.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom