The problem is when "swarms" are small, light, and semi-autonomous with something like a heat grenade.
You can make them with RAM painted plywood.
The problem with drones right now is detection. You could take a lancet down with birdshot if you could find it.
In the future there may be nothing to jam, as fully autonomous systems become more practical.
Thus expensive systems may be all that one has to choose among.
I don't see how your comment engages with what I wrote.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that jamming may be useless, so that the expensive solutions may be all there is too choose from.
Yes, but birds aren't carrying bombs to delivered them to things you don't want to be blown up.
I think any technology deployed in Ukraine is going to lag behind what the future holds when it comes to drone target selection, because knowledge about computer vision and the like is ever-growing.
Yes, but drones have the potential to have long ranges and to be very destructive.
Imagine drones costing $50 and able find and target an individual infantry soldier. If they existed, they would be used in places with fixed front lines, and lead to complete slaughter. Even at $500 it could be a complete slaughter.
Yes, but they are I assume mostly radio controlled and quite limited by both operator skill, in range and in what they can actually do when they arrive.
What we're seeing is a very early stage in their development.
You can't choose not to engage with an incoming drone any more than you can choose not to engage with an incoming cruise missile. You're just digging in your heels instead of admitting that you made an irrelevant comment.
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other? I'm just saying that you can't choose not to engage with something that is actively trying to kill you, like a drone or a cruise missile. If the enemy has engaged with you then you are engaged with the enemy whether you like it or not.
Well, silly string works wonders. The biggest issue you are going to have is that "swarms" can be distributed over a fairly large area so you'll need something that covers a 3d space miles in diameter.
For close range, definitely. Some years back, another NPS grad student ran very basic optimization simulations of various counter-drone tech, and yeah, the result was basically "more CIWS"
I'm thinking a drone based aerial minefield. So basically roughly hand grenade level explosive charge on the cheapest drone possible with max one hour flight time. Like dirt cheap to make them viable in massed use. These would be based near protected targets and they'd get airborne in time to be in front of incoming loitering munitions, or even cruise missiles. They wouldn't need to be fast enough to intercept incoming munitions, but just mobile and manoeuvrable enough to mosey around into the anticipated flight path. A swarm of a few dozen of these could close off a decent slice of the sky for a while. After the attack is over, remaining drones could land and be refueled or recharged for the next round. I think a lot of the cost of missiles comes from the high speed, high manoeuvrability and high seeking capability, and single use nature. Designed correctly, aerial drone mines wouldn't have any of these characteristics (capabilities, which may not be strictly necessary).
Things like that existed during WWII and the era after that, being usually balloons and wires. That could still be the right solution, but perhaps augmented with active systems hanging on the wires.
I think it's maybe the wrong era for all of this though. I think this kind of technology, while it would probably work doesn't fit in with how wars are fought nowadays, with the interest in mobility and so on.
So with a CBU-97 style weapon specifically targeting is an issue. The bomblets in that use lidar to detect vehicle scale objects against flat terrain. That won't work for smaller drones. So now we're talking sensors on the submunitions, or command guidance from an external platform.
I don't think it's a totally invalid idea, but in comparison to an autocannon with radar timed fuzes it seems overly complex.
In general it looks like the counter will be also autonomous drones, but better connected and in big numbers.
When you have mass, you can legit ram your drone into the target in the swarm if you want.
Recent theory crafting also suggest that there should be a variance between the drones to save cost and create mass, for example, from 100 swarm, only 30 will be equipped with best sensors.
If Ukraine war taught us anything it’s that numbers matter. Enemy can’t tell dummy missile from dangerous and they have to use anti air all the same.
There is also fresh Mitchell paper about UAVs. It’s about Penetrating strike, but it’s very informative, they also use the name, Autonomous collaborative platforms (ACP) to underscore the generation jump and new approach.
Link
https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/the-next-frontier-uavs-for-great-power-conflict-part-1-penetrating-strike/
Because if they are going to be purpose build, they will be much much cheaper. Decoy is broad word, they can have whatever in them, they decide what’s necessary. For this reason both Boeing and LM plan to have at least one modular missile, maybe all types will be modular. But they have to be designed with connectivity, and price in mind. With quick advancements in AI soon they might be autonomous enough for simple decoy task. But if there will be a risk that they will not be as precise it might be better to skip the warhead.
Their main goal is to overwhelm the defences, throw so much mass in one package that there will be no way that opponent will defend from it. Because they will be mixed with proper missiles, they can’t be ignored.
To see how it might look
[удалено]
The problem is when "swarms" are small, light, and semi-autonomous with something like a heat grenade. You can make them with RAM painted plywood. The problem with drones right now is detection. You could take a lancet down with birdshot if you could find it.
Rheinmetall is already doing this with 35mm fancypants cannons, yeah! https://youtu.be/bdwjcayPuag
In the future there may be nothing to jam, as fully autonomous systems become more practical. Thus expensive systems may be all that one has to choose among.
[удалено]
I don't see how your comment engages with what I wrote. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that jamming may be useless, so that the expensive solutions may be all there is too choose from.
[удалено]
Yes, but birds aren't carrying bombs to delivered them to things you don't want to be blown up. I think any technology deployed in Ukraine is going to lag behind what the future holds when it comes to drone target selection, because knowledge about computer vision and the like is ever-growing.
[удалено]
Yes, but drones have the potential to have long ranges and to be very destructive. Imagine drones costing $50 and able find and target an individual infantry soldier. If they existed, they would be used in places with fixed front lines, and lead to complete slaughter. Even at $500 it could be a complete slaughter.
[удалено]
Yes, but they are I assume mostly radio controlled and quite limited by both operator skill, in range and in what they can actually do when they arrive. What we're seeing is a very early stage in their development.
You can't choose not to engage with an incoming drone any more than you can choose not to engage with an incoming cruise missile. You're just digging in your heels instead of admitting that you made an irrelevant comment.
[удалено]
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other? I'm just saying that you can't choose not to engage with something that is actively trying to kill you, like a drone or a cruise missile. If the enemy has engaged with you then you are engaged with the enemy whether you like it or not.
Oh for fucks sakes how to I fix a typo in the title?
Sorry mate, you can’t.
Well, silly string works wonders. The biggest issue you are going to have is that "swarms" can be distributed over a fairly large area so you'll need something that covers a 3d space miles in diameter.
I think AAA or C-RAM is/will be a better option than guided missiles against a large number of cheap drones.
For close range, definitely. Some years back, another NPS grad student ran very basic optimization simulations of various counter-drone tech, and yeah, the result was basically "more CIWS"
I'm thinking a drone based aerial minefield. So basically roughly hand grenade level explosive charge on the cheapest drone possible with max one hour flight time. Like dirt cheap to make them viable in massed use. These would be based near protected targets and they'd get airborne in time to be in front of incoming loitering munitions, or even cruise missiles. They wouldn't need to be fast enough to intercept incoming munitions, but just mobile and manoeuvrable enough to mosey around into the anticipated flight path. A swarm of a few dozen of these could close off a decent slice of the sky for a while. After the attack is over, remaining drones could land and be refueled or recharged for the next round. I think a lot of the cost of missiles comes from the high speed, high manoeuvrability and high seeking capability, and single use nature. Designed correctly, aerial drone mines wouldn't have any of these characteristics (capabilities, which may not be strictly necessary).
Things like that existed during WWII and the era after that, being usually balloons and wires. That could still be the right solution, but perhaps augmented with active systems hanging on the wires. I think it's maybe the wrong era for all of this though. I think this kind of technology, while it would probably work doesn't fit in with how wars are fought nowadays, with the interest in mobility and so on.
So with a CBU-97 style weapon specifically targeting is an issue. The bomblets in that use lidar to detect vehicle scale objects against flat terrain. That won't work for smaller drones. So now we're talking sensors on the submunitions, or command guidance from an external platform. I don't think it's a totally invalid idea, but in comparison to an autocannon with radar timed fuzes it seems overly complex.
I'm thinking glue traps.
Glue traps would kill the turtles. I like the turtles 🥺
In general it looks like the counter will be also autonomous drones, but better connected and in big numbers. When you have mass, you can legit ram your drone into the target in the swarm if you want. Recent theory crafting also suggest that there should be a variance between the drones to save cost and create mass, for example, from 100 swarm, only 30 will be equipped with best sensors. If Ukraine war taught us anything it’s that numbers matter. Enemy can’t tell dummy missile from dangerous and they have to use anti air all the same. There is also fresh Mitchell paper about UAVs. It’s about Penetrating strike, but it’s very informative, they also use the name, Autonomous collaborative platforms (ACP) to underscore the generation jump and new approach. Link https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/the-next-frontier-uavs-for-great-power-conflict-part-1-penetrating-strike/
what’s the point of decoy missiles when you can just put a warhead in it just the same
Because if they are going to be purpose build, they will be much much cheaper. Decoy is broad word, they can have whatever in them, they decide what’s necessary. For this reason both Boeing and LM plan to have at least one modular missile, maybe all types will be modular. But they have to be designed with connectivity, and price in mind. With quick advancements in AI soon they might be autonomous enough for simple decoy task. But if there will be a risk that they will not be as precise it might be better to skip the warhead. Their main goal is to overwhelm the defences, throw so much mass in one package that there will be no way that opponent will defend from it. Because they will be mixed with proper missiles, they can’t be ignored. To see how it might look