Small UAS / Drones and related general thread - NOT Swarming ones.

First drone on drone kill in proper war that is widely accepted.

Some news on countermeasures:


Ukraine has created an application for mobile devices that will help air defense units supplement radar information about an air target to better the chances of taking it down, according to Ukraine's Strategic Communications Department.

How the app works
If you see an air target, for example, a cruise missile or a suicide drone, you need to open "ePPO" on your smartphone, select the type of air target, point your smartphone in the direction of the target and press the big red button.

Air defense specialists will see a mark on the map, it will complement the radar information and the threat will be shot down.
Click to expand...
Mass scale sensor fusion is needed to plug all the gaps. One wonders how much civilian/dual use sensing can be mobilized. (for example, automatic processing of security camera streams)

Drone attacks on population centers is really highlighting the threat.
 
Last edited:
Thought it best to repost this here from another thread.

sferrin said:
Manuducati said:
Disclaimer: the following is pure lucubration.

In theory, by using a couple Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pods (or similar), one Raptor could be armed with 14 AMRAAM (six internally plus four per pod). Now replace each AIM-120 by two CUDA type missiles in tandem, and you have your 28 missiles (and the side bays still available for lunch packets). Could be useful against drone swarms.
Click to expand...
Not when each member of the swarm is only 1/10th to 1/100th the cost of a CUDA.
Click to expand...
You need guided bullets for drones, or ground based AAA. Planes trying to use unguided cannons on drones is hazardous, especially on ones packed with explosive.

Another way might be to use other drones to do it.

High End

MARSS | INTERCEPTOR

MARSS has designed an AI enabled autonomous Interceptor that offers an intelligent, cost-effective and low collateral solution to neutralise hostile drones.
www.marss.com www.marss.com

Low End.
techcrunch.com

This drone sacrifices its own rotors to take down other drones

The prototype of a high-speed racing drone can self-destruct, using its own propellors to spread out a net to take down other drones.
techcrunch.com techcrunch.com

I have also heard that Eagles/Falcon dislike drones, they usually only kill when one is near their nest though, but it may be possible to train them.
 
I think directed energy weapons will be the best defensive units. A combination of microwaves for area effect against swarms or laser for point targets in an electromagnetically sensitive area.
 
Swarms don't exist so you don't need to address a hypothetical problem.

Quadcopters can be easily destroyed by airburst grenade launchers cued by APS-sized radars. Longbow can probably integrate drone detection with a software upgrade (if it hasn't already) and the M230 chain gun has a proven airburst capability, so an Apache is an effective drone hunter for instance. A fighter jet trying to shoot down a drone is a bit like trying to dogfight with a helicopter, but worse. Ukraine has already lost a MiG-29 this way though.

The natural solution is just putting grenade launcher RWS on tanks and having Trophy-sized radars for detecting drones. This should eliminate the bulk of the threat, at least provided it's dispersed wide enough in inventory, which is an open question.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The natural solution is just putting grenade launcher RWS on tanks and having Trophy-sized radars for detecting drones. This should eliminate the bulk of the threat, at least provided it's dispersed wide enough in inventory, which is an open question.
Click to expand...

30mmx113 guns seem to be where several companies are headed. It's just enough faster/flatter shooting than 40mm to be more efficient at countering some Group 2 UAS, while grenade-launcher-based solutions seem to be best suited for Group 1 only.
 
Is time fused 30mm common? I can see 30mm being a good low tech solution for now, but I still think beam weapons will ultimately be the solution. Shorter ToF, more rapid engagements, and for HPMs area effect. But those will be by their nature more expensive systems that probably only top tier powers can afford or have access to. 30mm seems to be a relatively common caliber that is a decent sweet spot for low altitude drones. The grenade launcher solution might still be useful for vehicles that lack the space and weight for a canon.

I think the bigger problem for small quad copter type drones is detection - their flying behavior can be much harder to sort from other types of radar returns. Even when they are flying in a more or less straight line, the low forward speed is going to make identifying them explicitly as a man made phenomenon more difficult.
 
sferrin said:
Good luck trying to hit swarms with a frackin' gun.
Click to expand...
With guided rounds it could work, especially with the slower junk. I'm thinking of that Sandia Labs bullet. If you had a small ground radar networked to a grenade launcher, with air-bursting rounds, a smart scope could show you where to aim them.
 
I think a canon with some kind of air burst could be perfectly workable for engaging drones, but working a swarm would probably require some AI logic to calculate a traveling salesman solution to a dynamic threat. IE, depending on the number of targets to be serviced, it might be best to fire several shells at everything without waiting to see the results or perhaps focus on one set of threats that are geographically closer to friendlies rather than take a simplistic approach of firing at the closest thing until it dies then engaging the next target. And the parameters might be changing on a second to second basis such that the algorithm changes engagement patterns for optimal efficiency.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Kat Tsun said:
The natural solution is just putting grenade launcher RWS on tanks and having Trophy-sized radars for detecting drones. This should eliminate the bulk of the threat, at least provided it's dispersed wide enough in inventory, which is an open question.
Click to expand...

30mmx113 guns seem to be where several companies are headed. It's just enough faster/flatter shooting than 40mm to be more efficient at countering some Group 2 UAS, while grenade-launcher-based solutions seem to be best suited for Group 1 only.
Click to expand...

I'd consider 30x113mm to be in the same "class" of weapons as 40mm HV, and ATK's 25x59mm guns, tbf.

i.e. Big enough to launch a somewhat useful PABM charge and light enough to fit in a Protector-type RWS.

It might be downplaying the capabilities of certain trajectories I suppose (e.g. AGLs are useful as impromptu mortars) but they're all solutions to the same problem. But yeah something along the lines of the ADEN/DEFA is becoming the medium term solution for the most part. It helps that they're equally useful against ATGW teams and machine guns/snipers. Perhaps miniature missiles, akin to QuickKill or Mongoose-3, or counter-UAS like Coyote, will become the true Group 3 flyswatter for mechanized companies and platoons.

Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
Good luck trying to hit swarms with a frackin' gun.
Click to expand...
With guided rounds it could work, especially with the slower junk. I'm thinking of that Sandia Labs bullet. If you had a small ground radar networked to a grenade launcher, with air-bursting rounds, a smart scope could show you where to aim them.
Click to expand...

You don't need guided rounds to hit a tiny propeller plane going at like 50 mph lol. You just fire three to five rounds of airburst ammunition and it's completely shredded.

You'd need a deep magazine though.

Thankfully swarms don't exist and aren't important right now. What's important right now is swatting DJI Phantoms up to Orlan-10s.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is time fused 30mm common?
Click to expand...

Don't know about time-fuzed. But 30mmx113 self-destruct and proximity-fuzed rounds are coming into US service for air defense and there is a multi-role prox-fuzed version in the works.

Kat Tsun said:
I'd consider 30x113mm to be in the same "class" of weapons as 40mm HV, and ATK's 25x59mm guns, tbf.
Click to expand...

I think there's a meaningful difference between 240 m/sec muzzle velocity (40mmx53) and 800m/sec (30x113)
 
Reports of machinegun mounted on multicopter out of Ukraine, only time will tell if it would be successful.

---------- Some theory -------------
Swarming is overrated. Micro aerial vehicle is air power with scale falling out of the bottom, and "mass" is just one small feature of air power. Attack is again only a small part of air power as well, and smashing head on into defenses is often inferior to a evasive approach: infiltration and dispersion.

As human scaled aircraft resulted in combined arms joint fighting, micro aerial vehicles will do the same. Most of the ideas about air power could be moved onto modern micro aerial vehicles, but a number of old limitations are removed:

1. Ground based stealth is more difficult than ever. Cover can be bypassed, only perfect top cover works. Cloud cover can be flown under, cost of high performance sensor over time is lower than ever.
2. The bottom has dropped out on addressable targets. Individual infantryman are valid targets. Active defenses are necessary.

When discussing the nature of air attack, one shouldn't forget concepts in SEAD. It is clear to me that there'd be optimal munitions for different target types: high performance munitions (speed, armor, internal countermeasures, etc) to defeat "volume" based defenses (lasers, large number of guns) and low performance high volume munitions against defenses with limited volume engagement capability (large SAM missiles, high performance aircraft AAM).

Some autocannon vehicles are nice, the opponent would bring higher performance munitions to kill that if low performance munitions are inefficient. Against an opponent with full spectrum capabilities, what is needed is to hide and maneuver your various AA assets so the opponent can't tailor a strike package and attack plan to neutralize that. This is a complex problem when the opponent have an array of sensing options and can fight for information as well.
-----------
Overall though, I don't think ground forces can "counter swarm" of sufficient density and sophistication (inclusion of high cost enablers, including SEAD, EW support, etc on top of mission planning). Ground forces lack mobility to mass and still cover the battlespace (for state sized conflicts), and thus suffer from low density, on top of not having initiative. Ground forces can defeat leakers, but I don't think it can defeat air power that can indeed mass.

The anti-swarm options I see happening is airborne lasers and, failing that, air launched micro-munitions. Large air platforms are far faster and efficient for payload/cost, have wide area sensors that all add up to efficient interception capability. A singular large swarm of low performance aircraft can be defeated by a few high performance aircraft with deep magazines and rapid engagement capability. Given a bit of buffer zone, a fast jet can cover far more of the battlespace than ground vehicles. AEW plus F-15s were a far more realistic defense than lining the Saudi boarder with autocannons at 3km intervals (that doesn't even cover high flying threats, can be sniped by ATGM/ballistic missiles/etc), for example, and there is still space to optimize for this mission (eg. remove unnecessary features).

The countermeasure to high performance aircraft by owner of swarms would be to disperse, hide and confuse, exploiting gaps in sensors and command and control. The Japanese Kamikaze did this and had success after large waves got completely smashed by radar directed interception. The ability for dispersed small groups to sneak onto target was also why point defense around the target was necessary despite air superiority.

--------
As for what is going on in the current conflict: defenses don't work all that well, and have limited coverage, there is no need to mass.

It seems to me that sheer platform count are the effectiveness limiting factor here, not defenses (which when effective naturally demand defense penetrating modifications) as civilian vehicles are thrown in at a high rate. A lot of targets can be economically attacked, but isn't because combatants didn't prepare (hundreds of) thousands platforms beforehand.

The thing to think about is about future conflict where equilibrium is reached, where a sufficient mass (relative to marginal cost effectiveness) of drones and other PGM is available on the outbreak of the conflict. Can't expect the next opponent to spend money on ships and new tank development programs and run out of cheap consumables a few month into a war.
 
Last edited:
This drone wasn't so lucky.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582466001559465985
View: https://twitter.com/UkrainianNews24/status/1582466001559465985?s=20&t=YrnAv-U_MqQrVvjcq27FyQ


New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine​

The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.​


An Iranian Shahed 171 drone dropping a bomb as part of a military exercise in the Gulf, in Iran (photo credit: REUTERS)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Grey Havoc said:
I don't think this has been posted yet. From late last month, via Tank-Net:

BAE Systems and Malloy Aeronautics reveal T-650 drone with three Brimstone missiles | gagadget.com

British companies Malloy Aeronautics and BAE Systems took part in the Defense Vehicle Dynamic exhibition, where they demonstrated the T-650 drone with Brimstone missiles.
gagadget.com
Click to expand...
This would be nice. How is the target designated though?

View attachment 685883
Click to expand...
Brimstone doesnt need it, though it can be laser guided, but that wouldnt be a problem anyway just fit a pod to a second drone with telemetry to a ground operator
 
defense-update.com

UAVs to Deploy BAE Systems' Depth Charges - Defense Update:

BAE Systems is developing a new type of depth charge designed for deployment from UAVs. The weapon consists of a small cylindrical container packing an explosive charge and a triggering mechanism activating the blast at the designated depth. The weapon is in an advanced development phase and has...
defense-update.com defense-update.com
 
Last edited:
First generation product probably using research not even 2 years old, probably can't expect much beyond basic functionality. Still, should a swarm should disrupt defenders and merely scouting out threats is valuable.

I wonder if a design with propeller guards, "flip on crash" capability (see tiny whoops) and algorithm that is relatively relaxed with regard to collision is ultimately the faster and better solution than a bunch of cameras and obstacle avoidance via higher quality sterovision.
 
20m/s outdoor is 72km/h or 45mi/hr.

Notice that it has only 7min endurance, hence it's a drone that have to be activated close to its target.
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
Is time fused 30mm common?
Click to expand...

Don't know about time-fuzed. But 30mmx113 self-destruct and proximity-fuzed rounds are coming into US service for air defense and there is a multi-role prox-fuzed version in the works.

Kat Tsun said:
I'd consider 30x113mm to be in the same "class" of weapons as 40mm HV, and ATK's 25x59mm guns, tbf.
Click to expand...

I think there's a meaningful difference between 240 m/sec muzzle velocity (40mmx53) and 800m/sec (30x113)
Click to expand...

True, but it's more that the class of aerial targets is limited to Group 1 and 2 UAS in both cases, they fire airburst munitions, and can be mounted on an RWS.

A 40mm AGL might need to arc more, or have a slightly shorter window of engagement on edge targets, though this could be compensated for by a muscular APS like a QuickKill or Avitronics' Mongoose-3, while also giving a tank crew a better close-in/urban anti-RPG/ambush capability than a 30mm chaingun, as the latter with its smaller payload and flatter trajectory isn't that great for hitting people behind large obstacles. Theoretically a 40mm RWS with airbursts could act as a mortar with proper software, as is done with normal use on mounted vehicles. Conversely a 30mm chaingun can compensate for weaker APS by giving wider engagement windows against UAS, while close-in anti-ambush capability is provided by Trophy or Iron Fist, or something more reactive.

They're not exactly comparable of course, but the advantages and tradeoffs they bring can be compensated in mirrored methods, they take up roughly the same amount of real estate on a tank, and they do essentially the same job (provide airburst anti-UAS/anti-ambush capability). Hence, same "class", even if that class of weapons devolves to the flat shooting mine shot gun versus the lobbed trajectory mortar bomb gun.

I guess an analogy is the aimed point shooting FCAR infantry rifle and the ultra light full automatic SCHV infantry rifle.

If the goal is to kill UAS and kill infantry, the 30mm is probably better. If the goal is to kill infantry and kill UAS, the 40mm is probably better.

Orionblamblam said:
shin_getter said:
www.thedrive.com

These Israeli Urban Battlefield Assassin Drones Are Nightmare Fuel

Based on racing drones, the new LANIUS loitering munition could easily get into and attack in tight places, like tunnels and buildings.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com




Now all thats needed is to schedule a TedX
Click to expand...

With all the stuff on them, these drones seem slow and sluggish. Not sure how great they'd be in reality... the actors in that scenario seemed pretty oblivious.
Click to expand...

It's an ad though.

The data sheet says 45 miles an hour indoors. They probably carry hand grenades given that's about all they'll be able to loft within the weight limits, either flashbangs or fragmentation/concussion. I'm not the fastest dude ever but I think even Usain Bolt would have trouble escaping a M67 clocking in at Main Street speeds TBF.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The data sheet says 45 miles an hour indoors.
Click to expand...

The video suggests a kinda drunken walking speed. Shrug.

Kat Tsun said:
They probably carry hand grenades given that's about all they'll be able to loft within the weight limits,
Click to expand...
Maybe grenade yields, but a somewhat-shaped charge would make more sense since they seem to point at a specific target. A mini-claymore, perhaps. Hard to tell what's better: injure everyone in the room, or obliterate the guy directly in front. I suspect the latter, but YMMV.
 
The video seems to be a combination of CGI and real, so it's hard to say?

The drone might only exist as a couple laboratory prototypes for now. Maybe they don't want to break it for filming an ad.

But they're not for police officers, no. Maybe they can be, if they make them with a flashbang, instead of a hand grenade. In the advertisement they're being used to eliminate machine gun positions and assassinate kingpins, not rescue hostages, after all. The advertisement literature suggests police use is a possibility, but that's not really in Israel's cultural or technological wheelhouse, tbh. I think the only reason the drone is pointing at people is for the ad audience's convenience and possibly VID of a weapon operator. No use blowing up the wrong hotel room, not even for the people inside who might not be connected, but because you didn't kill the machine gunner.

The attack method could be a shaped charge but IMO that would be weird, and probably heavy, likely moreso than a simple frag sleeve or high explosive payload. Perhaps ads for the People's Armed Police version of LANIUS will have tasers mounted? Israel had no trouble selling surveillance software to the PRC after all.

It's not a particularly fixed thing though I think. The main thing they're selling is it's a robot that can autonomously navigate a house and provide a hand grenade-sized solution to a problem inside the house. Whatever that solution is, or the problem, can be tailored to customer needs I imagine.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
20m/s outdoor is 72km/h or 45mi/hr.

Notice that it has only 7min endurance, hence it's a drone that have to be activated close to its target.
Click to expand...
Outdoor top speed is a function of drag to thrust.

Practical Indoor top speed is a function of acceleration and control system.

If you've watched professional drone races, robotic vehicle speeds would likely be disappointing. For course running drones the layout of space is known beforehand and optimal trajectory can be planned beforehand, while a searching drone does not have layouts (and I don't think its has priors on how unobserved part of the building should be structure, though it is possible can with sufficient training data and effort). As such it can only move so fast without unacceptable risk of collision.

The noise of such a vehicle would mean a stealthy kill is unlikely unless it is in landed mode. That said the shrapnel injury distance is likely to encompass line of sight in some close encounters, making good body armor and luck the primary means of defense. The ability to attack from normally inaccessible directions like from a 4th story window down a stairwell will make defense hard.

The attack feature of such drones is probably overrated in the search and security function: one can search out a structure and secure it without risking casualties. Even if the opposition successfully neutralize the drone, that is when you call in joint fires, unless the opposition have some very cheap means at doing so that enables use in huge fraction of structure in an urban area. Counter drones aside, maybe some kind of combined anti-drone, anti-personnel mine.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom