Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Forgive my ignorance here, but I must admit I am at a loss as to how what looks suspiciously like a toy aeroplane can be effective. Shouldn’t something that flimsy be easy to knock out the sky? What prevents something like a Shilka shooting the drone down? Why is the AI in the AA not keeping up with Billy on his joystick a few thousand miles away?

Could you not:

- Fool it’s camera by covering every surface with tents and covers. So they couldn’t easily identify where you were.

- Could you build a series of massive nets to catch low flying drones? Throw up a massive smokescreen to prevent it flying.

- Go underground. No exposed trenches or dugouts. Don’t have any uniforms or insignia to indicate who you are. Apply maximum social distancing at all times to stop any multi kills. Let them waste their missiles on a lone guy rather than a truck. You want them pissing their money away.

- Build dummy tanks and radar installations with phoney signals to bait the drones into wasting ordinance. Make very many cheap dummies. I assume the drone costs most than an inflatable.

- Can you hack the thing? I know, I know it’s a cliche and the low hanging fruit. But if the things remotely controlled then can’t you do something to scramble that signal? I have trouble connecting my wi-fi from a router a few feet from me. How are they keeping drones connected many miles away wirelessly? If you can block or scramble radar shouldn’t this be possible?

- Why not have a loitering drone to act like a mine that activates whenever another drone flies near? So you swarm the swarm.

I know the practical solution is probably going to be - use your drones to blast his drones on the ground first. I win.

This is why I like 40k. You can at least try to surrender to the angry space marine with a massive chainsword once you realise you’ve lost. You can’t surrender to a drone even if you’re marked for death. Real world war is horrible.

I suspect all of those approaches are already in use by military, which is what I assume you're talking about here.

Drones haven't really been enough of a nuisance in the civilian world yet for anti-drone technology to be a thing. There was that airport (London Gatwick?) shut down for a day over a drone, and I'd be stunned if they weren't used for industrial espionage at car manufacturers and the likes, albeit no-one would admit to using the results.

"Civilian" radio controlled drones have a range of maybe half a mile tops, and could be jammed if something got the right frequency.

Military drones are more like self guided missiles I guess, in that they'll often be pre-programmed and use GPS to reach a target. Presumably they wouldn't need to be interacted with once unleashed.
I'm not sure how the controlled ones are communicated with, unless it's using a long range radio being relayed from an aircraft in satellite range or something.

One of the most effective ways is to remove the operator... It can be quite difficult to actually mitigate drones.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
One of the most effective ways is to remove the operator... It can be quite difficult to actually mitigate drones.

So you could track the link from the drone to the operator and send a missile in that general direction?

I imagine that more than one military out there has protocol and/or tech to deal with drone conflict that is kept out of public knowledge. There is no particular need or benefit for the public to know, so why not?

Depends on what type of drone, what it's trying to achieve, how many there are, how it being operated.

If you had 200 civilian level drones just programmed to go from point A to target point B with a wad of C4 attached to it you'd probably struggle to stop even half of them.

Or if it's a larger, higher quality drone that fires military grade missiles you'd also struggle but whatever countermeasure that works on missiles would likely stop the worst of it.

Right now there are countermeasures for individual drones- but a swarm relies on outnumbering those defenses, which is often more practical to achieve than a really effective defense.

Israel's working on a portable laser truck- though it'd likely struggle against anything we'd call a swarm. https://asiatimes.com/2020/02/a-new-anti-drone-system-shows-promising-results/

Likewise, Russia's Ornithology Service (shockingly a real thing) has a flock of anti drone falcons. Again, unlikely to be effective against a swarm. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/01/29/kremlin-trains-falcons-capable-of-taking-down-drones-a60311

Surprisingly, even the Phalanx CIWS of the AEGIS system is not very reliable against drones- if 8 attacked, 2.8 would get through.
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-rely-on-the-Phalanx-CIWS-to-shoot-down-small-drones

It's the Dune effect, really. Because they're so slow, and so small, anything you calibrate for them would kill any birds that come within range. This would be a PR nightmare and likely waste a tremendous amount of ammunition.

What you might see is an adaptation of this anti drone gun- currently handheld, which makes it very unreliable against a swarm attack, or any fast moving drones. However, putting a jamming device like this tied to a Phalanx style automated fire control system would allow it to scramble anything it detected, and would likely not bother organic things it accidentally fired upon.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tech/article/2095112/hk300000-drone-killer-guns-available-hong-kong
They are strictly soft kills though, forcing the drone to land or return to its origin.\

It's really a fascinating field of study, with so many different possible solutions.

Why can't a shilka take out a drone?
Not a big enough radar cross-section for most commercial ones. Nada to lock onto.

You could take a chunk out of a swarm, but not all of them.

The RAAF here uses eagles to take them out - more because we tend to have wedge-tailed eagles living near air force bases than because they train them to do it. Wedgies regard ANYTHING else in the air as prey. They've been known to take on hang-gliders.

Why can't a shilka take out a drone?

Because there can be 100 or even 1000 small cheap drones

What about some kind of directed electromagnetic pulse? The technology doesn't exist yet I assume, but that might be a way to knock a bunch of those things out of the sky at once. We know how to create an EMP; so the only thing that needs to be figured out is how to focus it in a specific direction (probably much easier said than done, I know, I'm just spitballing here).

What I could see working (but I'm not sure if this is feasible):
As far as I know the gun-based Flak Systems like Gepard, Shilka etc. were more developed under the assumption of getting a clear radar signature and then really targeting the airplane/helicopter with ammunition that is intended for a direct hit that can penetrate at least a bit of armor. If one could instead develop a system that uses a combination of radar/optical/electromagnetic signal detection to make out the general direction and distance of a drone swarm following up by firing ammunition with a proximity fuse and a very high shrapnell spread, it might be possible to take out a lot of those massed, but unprotected drones. The "older" flak ammunition of Gepard etc. had to be designed to have enough impact to damage an attack helicopter, so could not have too small shrapnell (of it all) and spread radius, but if you have to take out something like a 10-20 cm drone I believe splinters the size of a fingernail can well do the job.

So think of not going for a direct hit but for saturation of the general volume the drones are in with loads of small shrapnell.

I have a feeling it's not going to be too long before a drone is used in a 'terrorist' attack in america against a cultural, political or corporate target. In fact I'm pretty amazed it hasn't happened yet.

After that I'm sure we'll see all sorts of drone control and drone laws passed.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I imagine that more than one military out there has protocol and/or tech to deal with drone conflict that is kept out of public knowledge. There is no particular need or benefit for the public to know, so why not?

I had assumed that, until a single drone was able to take down an airport (I think in the UK?) for like... 3 days straight?

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I imagine that more than one military out there has protocol and/or tech to deal with drone conflict that is kept out of public knowledge. There is no particular need or benefit for the public to know, so why not?

I had assumed that, until a single drone was able to take down an airport (I think in the UK?) for like... 3 days straight?

Gatwick Airport was shut down for 30-ish hours over 3 days (BBC). Military & intelligence services were on-site to assist, but some people think the drone(s) didn't really exist.

There's jamming technology to interfere with signals, I believe. It's certainly the most effective way. If your signal is screwed up, it doesn't matter how many of the things you've got in a swarm, they'll just drop out of the sky. The primary reason not to do this for odd drones is because it interferes with other critical services on the same frequencies, but in a situation of two hundred drones armed with C4? Well, your worries about local air traffic controllers are suddenly a lot less of a priority. Certainly in a military scenario, you'd make provision.

You stop mass drones with mass drones of your own.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You stop mass drones with mass drones of your own.

Damn beat me to it.

Alternatively, you stop mass drones, the same way you stop multiple missile fire.



Extra alternatively, you use firepower to take out the 3C/logistical elements that unleash/control the swarm.

It is a bit of a solved problem isn't it?

When dealing with Tau it is best to find the operator followed by engaging them in melee. Of course the wise path is to join them and rejoice in being part of the greater good, which sometimes means massed drones.

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You stop mass drones with mass drones of your own.

Damn beat me to it.

Alternatively, you stop mass drones, the same way you stop multiple missile fire.

Spoiler:

Extra alternatively, you use firepower to take out the 3C/logistical elements that unleash/control the swarm.

It is a bit of a solved problem isn't it?

That gun is sweet. A last line of defense though for sure against drones. I wonder how big a drone would need to be to have the capability to do real damage to a ship or a tank.

Something like this would probably work, but I'm guessing the risk of collateral damage is pretty high -

This might be useful against a drone swarm.

https://www.facebook.com/epitagma/videos/metal-storm-36-barrel-prototype-one-million-rounds-per-minute-rate-of-fire/779110639118024/

Skynet will hack into the drone software and take it over, protecting us from the bad guys.

I’m not entirely sure Drones are useful against a properly militarised foe?

I mean, their main use has been as a counter to guerilla tactics, yes? Cheaper than a fighter jet, but still carrying enough ordnance to blow up light vehicles etc.

Against someone with half decent, computer aided AA emplacements, are they not just far too slow to be any good?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not entirely sure Drones are useful against a properly militarised foe?

I mean, their main use has been as a counter to guerilla tactics, yes? Cheaper than a fighter jet, but still carrying enough ordnance to blow up light vehicles etc.

Against someone with half decent, computer aided AA emplacements, are they not just far too slow to be any good?

I think it's more an issue that AA and interceptor systems are cost effective against 6-9 digit cost targets such as missiles and aircraft, not 3-4 digit cost drones. When the cost of the ammo from a two-second burst of fire from a Phalanx CIWS may be twice the cost of the drone and payload alone, the equation changes, especially if an opponent is intentionally trying to overwhelm the defense systems with volume of fire. Likewise, drones in the vein the OP is talking about often are operating at altitudes that just aren't conducive to interception by conventional systems, often they're far too low for the big systems but can rapidly elevate and maneuver to make small arms fire difficult as well, they can be extremely small and hard to detect targets, and can operate in environments where traditional AA weapons might not be able to be used. Spraying 20mm cannon interceptor shells all over a dense high rise city trying to down a drone controlled by someone's cell phone for instance is likely to cause more problems than it solves for instance. So, it's not so much that they're impossible to stop, it's that they're many orders of magnitude cheaper and more easily deployed than the interceptor systems. The current saving grace being the *coordinating* and managing the logistics of a large scale small drone attack are probably out of the domain of most forces. Trying to navigate and fly dozens of drones at once in the same airspace to accomplish a goal without obliterating themselves on terrain or each other would be no mean feat.

Herzlos wrote:
I suspect all of those approaches are already in use by military, which is what I assume you're talking about here.

Agreed with jamming being the best defence.
Please note that we are only seeing drones used in asymmetric warfare. There is little ISIS can do to stop a US drone. In a general war between multiple advanced powers the drones will not be able to operate in the 'pea soup' EW that will be generated.

Herzlos wrote:

Drones haven't really been enough of a nuisance in the civilian world yet for anti-drone technology to be a thing. There was that airport (London Gatwick?) shut down for a day over a drone, and I'd be stunned if they weren't used for industrial espionage at car manufacturers and the likes, albeit no-one would admit to using the results.

We might not be seeing all there is to see. There are motivated activists that used drones and drones are available. Yet the drone disruption events have had their day and disappeared. I wonder why. Lockdown cant cover all the bases.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not entirely sure Drones are useful against a properly militarised foe?

I mean, their main use has been as a counter to guerilla tactics, yes? Cheaper than a fighter jet, but still carrying enough ordnance to blow up light vehicles etc.

Against someone with half decent, computer aided AA emplacements, are they not just far too slow to be any good?

Drones are closer to role to a helicopter than a fighter. They're prop-driven, long loiter time aircraft that are used pretty much solely for ground attack roles, and are about the same cost as well ($17 mil for a Reaper, $20 mil for an Apache).

To be fair though, OP seems to be conflating civilian drones and military drones. Reapers have close to a 70' wingspan, and while they've been pared down due to not needing a cockpit they're still far more similar to a ground attack aircraft than anything on the civilian market. So, if you're looking to counter drones, you want any measure that would stop a ground-attack plane like the Warthog (or powerful and ubiquitous ECM coverage, which has a slight problem due to jammers basically doubling as target beacons).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not entirely sure Drones are useful against a properly militarised foe?

I mean, their main use has been as a counter to guerilla tactics, yes? Cheaper than a fighter jet, but still carrying enough ordnance to blow up light vehicles etc.

Against someone with half decent, computer aided AA emplacements, are they not just far too slow to be any good?

I think were talking about significantly smaller drones.

Like several hundred small drones 3-5 footers carrying tactical nukes? How would you stop that?

But significantly smaller ones don’t exactly pose a threat?

I will of course admit to my utter, utter ignorance when it comes to their potential.

Because after all, ignorance is not a threat. But the illusion of knowledge is!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But significantly smaller ones don’t exactly pose a threat?

I will of course admit to my utter, utter ignorance when it comes to their potential.

Because after all, ignorance is not a threat. But the illusion of knowledge is!

Right smaller should be less threatening. But if you can sneak up and overwhelm an AA defense at the last second because you avoided radar entirely. What kinds of ordinance could they deliever? Say around 50 lbs...what is the most powerful explosive at that weight?

50lb of explosive can potentially do a lot of damage to military targets.

Far as I'm aware in terms of airborne ieds they are mainly used to drop unpinned grenades or improvised shaped charges. I guess you could turn them into unmanned airborne vbied but I hadn't heard of any specific examples of that sort of thing. I guess it could get expensive buying new drones after every attack.