I've enjoyed Mark Rober's videos for a while now. They are fun, touch on accessible topics, and have decent production value. But this recent video isn't sitting right with me
The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGENEXocJU
In it, he talks about a few techniques for how to take down "bad guy drones", the problems with each, and then shows off the drone tech by Anduril as a solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anduril_Industries
Anduril aims to sell the U.S. Department of Defense technology, including artificial intelligence and robotics. Anduril's major products include unmanned aerial systems (UAS), counter-UAS (CUAS), semi-portable autonomous surveillance systems, and networked command and control software.
In the video, the Anduril product is a heavy drone that uses kinetic energy to destroy other drones (by flying into them). Quoting the person in the video:
imagine a children's bowling ball thrown at twice as fast as a major league baseball fastball, that's what it's like getting hit by Anvil
This technology is scary for obvious reasons, especially in the wrong hands. What I also don't like is how Mark Rober's content is aimed at children, and this video includes a large segment advertising the children's products he is selling. Despite that, he is promoting military technology with serious ethical implications.
There's even a section in the video where they show off the Roadrunner, compare it against the patriot missiles, and loosely tie it in to defending against drones. While the Anvil could be used to hurt people, at least it is designed for small flying drones. The Roadrunner is not:
The Roadrunner is a 6 ft (1.8 m)-long twin turbojet-powered delta-winged craft capable of high subsonic speeds and extreme maneuverability. Company officials describe it as somewhere between an autonomous drone and a reusable missile. The basic version can be fitted with modular payloads such as intelligence and reconnaissance sensors. The Roadrunner-M has an explosive warhead to intercept UAS, cruise missiles, and manned aircraft.
Is it just me, or does that discussion of the various ways to counter drones, kinda miss the obvious of just shooting them with a conventional gun?
Been tried quite a bit now in the Russo-Ukrainian theater. Not as easy as it sounds.
You shoot much?
I have to think no because then you’d know how difficult it is to hit a stationary target and then be able to extrapolate that to one that moves and changes direction on a dime in 3 dimensions.
Then you’d also consider what’s happening to the projectiles that inevitably miss even in a computerized targeting system.
At range sure, nearby though an open choke shotgun would be pretty viable. Skeet shooting has been a thing for a while and unless it can change direction between the trigger and the pellets reaching it the drone's likely at least impaired.
Skeet/trap shooting was designed around duck hunting. Ducks aren't particularly acrobatic flyers. Even fat, heavy quadcopters like off the shelf DJI stuff can do some impressive maneuvers, and purpose built racing quads are wicked. If the operator tries a little to do some evasive maneuvers, or the autopilot has it programmed in, it's going to be very hard to shoot down.
Shotguns also aren't common on the battlefield. They're not that useful for typical army engagement ranges. Navy vessels do use them for boarding actions, but you usually won't find them in armies.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
off the shelf DJI stuff
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
How nearby is nearby though? And, in the context of the proposed use case for defending a crowded stadium in a populated area, does this put people down range as well that could also be impaired by the pellets?
The optimal sweet spot is probably like 40 meters or something, within 20 or 10 meters and the drone is probably in range to drop a grenade or explode, and becomes much harder to hit because it's capable of making much quicker direction changes relative to where you're standing even as it presents a larger target to you as a consequence of being closer, and a whole lot farther out, and birdshot can't really cut it.
Edit: Oh I was also gonna say, for indoor spaces, it'd maybe be not a good idea even just for hearing protection, but barring that, you could just opt for something lower velocity which you'd probably pack for this occasion if you're defending a set location, and then just load what you need in like 2 seconds. I imagine most drones are going to be flying around above head height anyways, so the main worry would be debris and falloff. You can't prevent debris from the drone really unless you have a net drone or something, and the falloff on the backend of a lower velocity or frangible birdshot with less mass is probably not super consequential except maybe in the case of eye protection. Some sort of ceramic bullet or maybe even steel bbs would probably work without doing too much damage. More than a drone, anyways. It's not as though a drone that rams into another drone is a particularly safe thing, in any case.
Crowded spaces it's a problem, I was more talking to notion of just plain shooting them rather than a use case. A rifle would be dang near impossible, but a scattered spray, you really only need to stop one prop and it's probably on the ground for a standard 4 prop deal. At least mine got real screwy when a blade split mid flight.
Edit: It also could be noted that while a lot of pellets would miss, they would pose a lot less risk that a rifled bullet coming back down. The weight of an individual shot pellet is a fraction of the weight of a bullet, so less momentum, plus the don't have a ballistic spin to maintain their speed that a rifle round does. Basically someone shooting a shot round in the air would come down with about as much force as a handful of gravel once the air resistance slows it a bit.
Admittedly not, no. I was making the assumption, possibly a naive one, that a computer should be capable of understanding the physics behind bullet trajectories well enough to shoot accurately even if the target is mobile.
You should check out some videos of CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) in action. They're systems designed to shoot down projectiles like missiles and mortar rounds (as well as targeting small vehicles and planes). The sheer number of rounds they spray to take out a target that is moving on a single ballistic trajectory is crazy.
The closest thing I know of to what you're talking about would be hard-kill APS (Active Protection Systems). These are systems designed to protect vehicles like tanks from incoming rounds and missiles. Using radar and optical sensors, they can detect a round and predict whether or not it's going to hit the vehicle and respond in nanoseconds, firing an explosive back at a target traveling 1-2km per second. However, this isn't like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet. It's more like chucking a grenade at a missile to either deflect it or destroy enough of it that the pieces (still going 1-2km/s) don't damage the vehicle.
But both of these systems are designed mainly for destroying targets on a ballistic trajectory. When you throw drones into the mix, now you have a target that can react to your reaction. With slower moving drones like the helicopter ones, that's easy enough. But what about a drone that's moving at mach 2 and capable of sustaining 20g's, like a missile. Now you're talking about basically firing missiles at missiles, which has proven to be very difficult before a missile has spent its fuel and is coasting towards its target on its final ballistic trajectory.
We've had that technology since the 70's, it's called the Phalanx system and it automatically defends naval vessels against incoming missiles.
To do this the Phalanx fires 4,500 rounds per minute. While it only has to fire for 1-3 seconds per incoming object, that's still an ungodly number of rounds, each one about the length of your hand.
To do the same with a human operated firearm would take such a degree of luck that you may as well pray for the incoming drone to get struck by lightning.
You're approaching the issue incorrectly, because you're omitting cost.
For example: Russia is using suicide drones that cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each.
It's not economically(or logistically) viable to fire a few hundred rounds of ammunition at every drone.
Firing a several thousand dollars worth of bullets at a missile works because the missile is at least several hundred thousand.
That's why Raytheon developed a laser based anti-drone system. Electricity is cheaper than bullets.
It's a lot less portable, though.
Fits on a pickup truck.
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers
Huh, only 10 kW? I thought it would be more. If it's got a big bed, you could put the generator right there too. I don't know how much electricity a consumer pickup engine provides, but it's probably not that much. A quick Google suggests consumer bed outlets are about 400 W.
You're on the right track but comparing the wrong things. It's cost of the rounds vs the cost of not stopping the incoming weapon (ie lives and damages), not vs the cost of the incoming weapon.
Eh, the comparison is valid when the opponent can throw ten to upwards of several thousand drones at you for the cost of one countermeasure.
That works out on the water, since the thousands of bullets that missed fall "harmlessly" into the ocean. On land, we have to think about all the bullets that miss too.
Pretty sure they're self-detonating rounds
Raytheon has been making a few improvements since the 70's, like getting rid of the bullets.
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers
I didn't really think human operated, I was imagining something pretty much exactly like phalanx, but with a much smaller caliber and turret size owing to the small size of drones. Like a phalanx type software controller mounted to a small turret with a small caliber machinegun or automatic shotgun type weapon.
There are enormous downsides including mechanical reliability and weight.
Raytheon is already selling a system that assists a human operator in drone targeting, then knocks them out with a laser emitter. The whole thing fits on the back of a Polaris off-road vehicle and runs on electricity. That means the ammo is a gallon or two of fuel.
Don't forget that projectiles have to obey the laws of gravity. Firing a couple hundred rounds over a stadium in a busy city doesn't seem like a great idea
Those fpv drones are almost invisible until they're about 5 m out and then they hit you within about half a second. It's almost impossible to describe the speed maneuverability they have, and combined with their tiny size it's very hard to even see them, let alone hit them.
I suppose that depending on the location you might not want to have stray bullets landing at random, also depending on the size and the speed of the drone it might be hard to target.
You'd think that a bot could target it, but some drones are just super agile
Not saying they'd dodge a bullet or shell, just saying that they're hard to aim at
If you can target them with a laser though, why would a gun be much different? I know there's dramatically more travel time, but bullets are still extremely fast, and even if one shot misses, something like a machinegun with a computerized control system seems like it ought to hit the thing before too long? Maybe the risk of missed shots causing harm might be too high for populated areas?
The issue is drone speed. They can go 200mph+ in less than 4 sec. If they’re trained to outmaneuver incoming ammunition/lasers then I’d say good luck hitting one. It’s very much like trying to swat a fly. Not impossible but difficult enough.
One of the use cases is it flying around a packed stadium. Without the drone standing rather still so you can get under and shoot right up at it, there's no clear shot.
These other people are pulling ya, the answer is yes, you can shoot them down, we have a full sport for it called skeet shooting. A drone can't pivot out of the way in the 0.1 seconds it takes for you to pull the trigger and for the bird shot to travel and take it out. The biggest problem is the range of the gun (which isn't that bad) and spotting the drone beforehand. The noise a drone of that size makes is not that much consider it could be like 40 or 50 feet up in the dead of night with no lights, buzz past you, drop a grenade down, kablooie. If the drone backs off or otherwise pivots to try to avoid getting shot, it probably couldn't do what it was there to do anyways.
Obviously, a big array of military industrial camera technology running in a big fence is going to be able to spot the drone pretty quick, but the video doesn't focus on the tech there because presumably that'd be too interesting and probably the company would not like that.