/k/ is too moronic to answer this. Why these frickers seem so indestructible?
Would be too hard to build a small cheap interceptor drone that just seeks the microwave signature of the video feed and stuff? And that explodes near it?
I am speaking of consumer drones used in Ukraine, not the actual hi tech military ones.
>give every soldier a shotgun or a jammer gun thing
>detonate a nuke over ukraine that disables all electronics
>build a mini anti air station on wheels that soldiers can bring with them
many options
Your options assume focus. When stressed and distracted by other kinds of attack a single drone is already disruptive and effective before targeted and destroyed. I guess it's fortunate that drones are too expensive to mass produce for single use.
i don't really understand why short distance jammers arent part of standard kit for these guys
Especially with the suicide drones, you don't need to care about being triangulated if the other option is dying
Short range jammers exist but in many cases they are useless. Only long range jammers are useful but these are often bulky, expensive and require a lot of power.
Suicide drones are often set on collision course once a (visual) target is aquired. So if there is a russian tank just set the speed, direction and rate of descent and at that point it basically becomes an unguided projectile not controlled by operator anymore jamming it at that point becomes useless.
>engage short range jammer
>drone loses fpv link
>homes in on your backpack jammer shitting out radio waves instead
Lol lmao
Govts have all made efforts to ban these drones because politicians understand they are evil scum deserving of death, so expect the public to deliver justice by using a drone to exterminate these vile creatures.
?
>focus
the frick u mean by that I'm talking about an automated drone like:
small agile quadcopter;
directional antennas for detecting signals;
proximity sensor to set it off;
small explosive payload;
software magic to make it happen
It wouldn't even require a big battery or a camera.
>too expensive
bro u can buy chink drones for like 80 bucks
>the frick u mean by that
Shotguns, radars and jammers are not helpful if at some unpredictable time while busy eating a ration, reading a map, hiding in a trench, getting shot at, needing to piss, sniffing coke, getting yelled at, reloading a weapon, taking aim etc. ad infinitum suddenly a drone shows up which already released its load to bomb a nearby less defended / off-guard target and returns to base while you grab the shotgun and desperately try to hit a faraway mosquito.
>bro u can buy chink drones for like 80 bucks
And how much does it cost to equip the drone with a weapon system and ammunition? How much does a team of professionals cost who gather information about the target and effectively plan the drone strike?
>And how much does it cost to equip the drone with a weapon system and ammunition?
I am assuming a suicide drone solution that would run on commercial parts and those cost very little, armament would be basically a grenade with sufficient kill radius for the attainable proximity.
Antennas and sensors wouldn't be frightfully expensive too.
The hardest part would be software development and testing since there is nothing off shelf, but that's a one off cost.
You can choose between downloading a CIA tracked & traced manual on how to make explosives, buy explosives directly from the CIA or buy the parts also tracked & traced by the CIA. The fact that no criminal drone attack has occurred yet in a western country suggests that governments have excellent prevention schemes.
its more to do with the bombs and less to do with the drones
any homemade explosives are not gonna be powerful, such that the payload required to do damage is too much for a consumer drone to handle
All the gov has to do is regulate drones that can carry heavy shit
just shows how satanic the government is. Hope everyone who works for security "services" dies immediately
war's going to be even more hell than it was before. And yet everyone thinks we need govts.
i would guess anduril is working on stuff like that right now. i would think we'll see more stuff like that in the future.
i suspect the reason we don't have systems like that yet is a mix of the tech being relatively new (at least the use like this is) and the complexity of developing and integrating a system like this. It at least seems complex considering you might need advanced optics and ai tech to detect the drones together with ai to control the intercepting drone (otherwise you would likely not hit anything) and the machines to conduct these tasks (you could use a suicide drone, but it would be nicer if you could use a reusable drone with some sort of shotgun weapon or so. but you would have to build those too).
While this may all be doable and might work very well, i doubt ukraine has the capability to develop something like this while in the midst of the conflict. Even for the us i think it might take years before they could build a significant capability in this field.
The answer is that these things are tiny compared to most conventional airborne targets (i.e. planes/helicopters).
yes but they emit strong signals over commercial grade wifi tech for the video feed and control. They don't have autonomous capabilities besides emergency landing and other minor shit. And they have to transmit video otherwise they are useless.
Ok and? Do you know how much shit produces wifi signals in 2024?
I thought I was clear, it's not a difficult concept: the drone detects the transmitter antenna with directional antennas.
>Do you know how much shit produces wifi signals in 2024?
not many from altitude, and a source that is in a near range is easily detectable. If you're talking about noise, there are algorithms for that.
I'm not an EE so my guesswork ends there pretty much, I would be curious to hear an opinion from an EE or similar.
The problem is almost always association not detection. It's very easy to detect that a source is putting out some information. In general it is very difficult to say for certain "this signal is coming from this specific source" (data association) unless the source is specifically telling you cooperatively that it is the source of the information.
At some level that drone will be communicating cooperatively with it's control station, but that will be encrypted and very difficult to actively decrypt/demodulate without knowing the specific codebook the source drone is using. So ultimately, you'll know that a source is transmitting something (that you in general won't be able to read), but unless you have some way of localizing that source you won't even know that it's coming from let alone where it specifically is being transmitted from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding
Even if the drones try to use a mesh network (which will put too much pressure on nodes closer to the command center for realtime) triangulating will still give you the location of a drone
Passive only localization is not anywhere near as trivial as you are claiming. It requires very sophisticated techniques and favorable geometry to get reliable passive only full state localization.
Also, I forgot in
your direction finding is assuming an association ahead of time (i.e., you know what the source of the signal is, you just need to find where it is).
In a case where there's many sources of similar transmissions in a small area (as would be typical when there are drones used for surveillance too, not just weapons, let alone non-auv comms) figuring out for certain that the received signals are coming from a particular target is not simple. In your direction finding case there's no measurement origin uncertainty, and they can leverage this to say that measurements over time must belong to the same source at a specific location. If you aren't certain that your measurements are only coming from one source, it's definitely less straightforward.
It's very easy if in the area is not supposed to be anything transmitting up in the air. Everything that does is foe and you go after it.
The algorithm would be like:
directional antenna(s) tell drone the direction where to go;
drone goes in such direction, and keep following;
increase in signal strength tells you're on the good path;
at near enough range proximity detector (like a car radar) gives more accurate location, and sets off at effective distance
Basically how a heat seeking missile works.
I don't see why it wouldn't work.
The only inconvenience would be having drones up too, but that could be overcome with basic friend or foe system
I think you're absolutely correct. The problems raised by others will be solved in a few decades, assuming they exist at all.
Reminder that if your policy is government must restrict freedom for safety, as technology increases, ever more freedom will be taken away.
Assuming the dysgenics crisis won't set civilization back to the iron age, your role in the army will be PTSD filled drone fodder.
The basic problem of data association for target tracking has been around since the 1950's and we've made essentially no progress on it since the early 70's.
It's an NP-hard problem that grows in complexity exponentially as the number of potential targets in a search region grows and requires N+1 measurement sources (forcing that growth) to discriminate between N targets in a measurement frame. The problem is one of mathematics, not algorithmic wizardry.
We've made some progress via approximate inference and heuristic search strategies, but actually addressing the real issue hasn't been handled in any meaningful way.
Drones do not fly fast enough to be a concern.
That's cool. It'll be solved within a few decades as I said. You WILL be delimbed by a souless $200 hand grenade with wings.
Okay, if you say so. Maybe you with your incredible intelligence and absolutely no subject matter ignorance whatsoever know something that I and the rest of the target tracking community don't :^)
I don't have any reason to believe that the problem of data association will be solved any time soon.
With that said, I don't know if it needs to be if you're willing to use heuristics and risk blowing up your own assets. If you are willing to treat all sources as target sources, then go for it. If you can't afford to blow up your own gear then you need a more sophisticated approach than just lob a grenade in the direction of anything with any detectable RF signal.
How exactly would you expect to set up a "friend or foe" system without communicating information that could be exploited in the same way by others?
uh never heard about encryption bro?
You aren't understanding. You are expecting that you can do direction finding from raw energy detection regardless of what the content of the measurements are (which in principle you can). You then broadcast "friend vs foe" encrypted measurements (meaning you are putting out the exact kind of signals you are trying to use to track assumed foe targets).
What is to stop them from using this large signal strength you are putting out to use the same strategy to intercept your interception drones? What is to stop your system from confusing friendly but non-communicative drones for foes and downing your own comms?
are you dumb or something
the interceptor drone is passive except for the interrogation signal that can be sparse enough to not get located. It doesn't need to send a continuous stream of information like the video stream of the target drone.
It's IFF tech that already exists.
Anyway, if you don't have drones up you can even send interceptor drones without this shit.
How do other interception drones on your team determine that your interception drone is friendly without your interception drone using active comms?
It seems like you aren't thinking about this problem as if you aren't the only player in the game (friendly or otherwise).
interceptor drones as I imagining them are mostly passive. I've said it many times at this point I would build them to follow videos streams so high bandwidth and on known frequencies (for weaponized consumer drones).
Obviously there will be a race on this but why thinking too much foreward when you have soldiers dying on the field
>I would build them to follow videos streams so high bandwidth and on known frequencies (for weaponized consumer drones).
That is not easy (or cheap) to do.
yeah well for a fricking Army, no matter how disgraced, especially in collaboration with universities it would be doable and not too expensive (unless obviously some pigs start embezzling funds and getting fat on it).
Unit cost after development can be quite low.
To have a drone follow rf signal of another drone, the first drone will have to have complex radar and tracking system which will make the first drone bigger and more expensive to produce, that or it will need ground stations/radars to detect the second drone, that will make it smaller and cheaper but ground stations will add a ton of cost and complexity. Then you need several of them to cover large area, having a 100k-1m drones to hunt small $500 suicide drones (with success rate of what? 20%) that go up in the air for 10-15 minutes with a high risk of it getting shot down by the enemy is just not cost effective.
Just use drones like landmines: Dont bother with FOF and designate an entire area a no go zone full of mosquito swarms.
not how it works. most batt powered drones if carrying a payload only have 5-10 min flight time. they aren't a persistent threat, more like precision long range strike packages.
If anything the command signal needs to be backtraced and simply take out the pilots.
That's certainly an approach. It will basically remove any low flying surveillance or comms assets you have, but it's an approach.
How exactly would you prevent said swarms from blowing each other up?
>How exactly would you prevent said swarms from blowing each other up?
not him but enable a very short range FOF that is detectable only at kill distance like 2-3 meters that if it gets the correct response it does nothing otherwise it detonates.
Okay, so you are going to have the interceptor drones fly slow enough that they would be able to stop their approach to the target within this 2-3 meter range? You're going to design them so that they need to be within, what 10 cm of collision before they explode?
Idk what a kill radius of a grenade for a drone is but let's assume 2m the interceptor will send the interrogation signal and if the drone doesn't respond in like 50-100ms it goes booooom
>To have a drone follow rf signal of another drone, the first drone will have to have complex radar and tracking system
you don't need a radar the target drone is already giving off the signal to be followed and an off shelf automotive short range radar for the final meters and for going boom
Now you see the danger of genetically modified mosquitoes.
There is strangeness in the Russian march through the borderlands. The rochambeau game, infantry-artillery-aircraft, is not being played in regular terms. This is because it is a conflict designed to kill the ukrainian men, Russian men as well, but Russia isn't the country soon to be occupied by kites. The somewhat devastating effect of drones are the result of this muting.
Because you are largely zooming and soi facing to a well curated video feed of successes.
They arent viable in long term combat. Their engagement area is too close and they are too easy to track. You start adding detection countermeasures, their weight increases too much.
Still, they will have their place in the upcoming urban conflicts.
Ive been working on something to give to ground based infantry to essentially work as man portable CWISS. drones are weak and dont take much to take down as the props are a significant weak point. Volume of fire is required to essentially blanket the targets approximate location. I'm talking putting 100's projectiles down range as fast as possible, with reasonable accuracy and energy.
Most of these drones carry short range munitions, their size and agility usually make long distance engagements ridiculously difficult. engaging within 20-40m will give some level of defence.
i have the projectile lobber which is energetic enough, short range targeting is my only hurdle left.
Some sort of multibarrel device filled with shotgun shells, but the detection of the drone and timing is crucial here, in other words it's all about detection, detecting the drone is the most important
Dislike shotgun shells. too large, heavy, minimal ammo. The solution i have houses thousands of projectiles and should be fast and brainless to reload and be capable of engaging multiple drones before resupply.
perfect opportunity to use a cartridge-less system that doesn't need require explosive propulsion. it wont be effective against anti tank munitions but anything Quadcopter based is cannon fodder.
1) too small so it cant be seen easily
2) too far high up, thus accuracy of traditional/manual aimed weapons are weak
3) too numerous/cheap to build out and thus allows rapid placement/deployment.
Dont forget that they have a much smaller heat signature and are relatively quiet.
Yep. Also the counter measures are 10X more expensive, harder to deploy, etc.
These people should be investing in laser turret system to destroy drones that runs on top of vehicles. Powered by diesel/gas-electric generator, they can run for hours-days.
Why would you use that over bullets?
Instant and 100% accuracy rate, absolutely critical when you're trying to find targets with cameras/thermal cameras and you need the instant lock. You dont even have to waste any energy either, because just do low power laser track on the target INSTANTLY and then switch to high power target, if you're worried about wasting energy.
+ infinite ammo
Because you don't have to deal with ballistics. Nor do you have to deal with overpenetration.
Computer use stereoscopy to calculate position, laser fires up and pulses. Camera don't have to be fast enough to capture the ballistics of the bullets in order to correct the shots. IR can see if you hit or not, and then you just increase pulse to the point the drone explodes.
>Instant
You still need to turn on the generator, fill the capacitors and move the turret.
>+ infinite ammo
That's obviously not true. Lasers need gases, lenses (?) and massive amounts of power. They're AFAIK bulky, expensive, fragile and unreliable.
>ballistics
>overpenetration
Aren't these solved problems? Lasers have AFAIK never been used in combat.
>Couldn't you just jam the radio frequency these things use?
Yes, I'm pretty sure the police does this here. But the front lines in Ukraine are probably already full of jammers if only for communications. The problems with that I imagine is that they make for easy targets. A countermeasure to this is probably to just
program the drone.
>Seems like a no brainer
If it's so easy they're probably already doing it.
>More importantly, why hasn't the government mandated all consumer drones have a radio triggered kill switch?
I think they've had mandatory identification for some time now I think. I've regularly read about prisons deploying drone countermeasures for years.
Couldn't you just jam the radio frequency these things use? Seems like a no brainer that makes me wonder WTF is going on ITT. Everyone wants to make MORE weapons here.
More importantly, why hasn't the government mandated all consumer drones have a radio triggered kill switch? Not a fall out of the sky and land on a baby's head kill switch, but a forced descent and landing kind of kill switch. Police need a way to deactivate consumer drones that wander into unauthorized space either unintentionally or not. This safety feature would also discourage them from being used as weapons.
Is this finally a use for high energy lasers? Can't take much juice to disable a plastic drone
I worked in cUAS until recently and have experience trying to detect drones using different methods. Was sent to international cUAS events for work and had to image drones. I could tell you guys a lot but I'm kind of fricking lazy right now.
You got your effectors, which can be guns or jamming or hacking (cyber-effectors). Jamming can work but fails for autonomous drones, or bespoke drones operating in unusual bands. Jammers on the battlefield also act as a blinding beacon telling the enemy where to drop a shell on you. More appropriate for downtown Vancouver for a large event, or for hosting a visiting foreign head of state.
As for imaging, you have EO/IR (electro-optic infrared) and radars. EO works out to like 700m-1km and doesn't work at night obviously. Drones have a surprisingly good IR signature (rotor heat), but you still only get maybe 1 km at best.
Radar can do some cool shit, like micro-doppler classification of drone rotor spectra, but drones have small af RCS, about -20dbm. Drones are plastic. They are very hard to see. And they move fast.
There is currently an IDeAs $2.5 million dollar challenge going on with the Gov of Canada related to cUAS solutions. They aren't alone, the whole world is working on this.
It's awful. I don't see a solution. These imaging systems are so expensive and their experimental test scenarios are incredibly contrived. Speaking from experience, I think you probably would be better off breeding a bunch of eagles and trying to train them to prey on drones.
>Would be too hard to build a small cheap interceptor drone that just seeks the microwave signature of the video feed and stuff?
Better yet you could probably just build an auto turret with a shotgun or something.
It's common consensus that in the next war, these won't be nearly as effective because every other nation is scrambling to integrate these frickers into their forces and come up with cheap counter measures
Obviously doesnt belong to this board even saud so yourself first sentence have a nice day /k/ope troony
That desperately begs for shopping a dildo.