So what exactly do these drones look like, miniature aeroplanes, or multirotor helicopters? Either way, the only way you're going to get any speed out of them is by attaching a rocket on a demand fuse.

Okay, aircraft type then, and since you want both loitering (presumably a pretty tight circle) and high speed, that means swing-wings, which means a fairly high cost, unless the high-speed bit is done via a rocket.

Well the fact that a smart bullet leaves it propulsion behind in the gun, which dramatically reduces the weight.

Also, 'firearms' are a capable of being downsized as well, a 3mm slug won't do much good against a human, but against a drone <10cm across...

edited 21st Nov '14 10:43:32 PM by MattII

Just like with planes, bombs, bullets, missiles etc. you design the drone(s) to suit the need and use. Pick a design or multiple designs for the swarm. Possibly use multiple designs for a multifunctional swarm. Each series of drones could be handling a specific task while networked and interacting with the network.

Like I said you would need nothing more then a short powerful kicker charge to propel the drone or maybe its armored cap for the attack. You don't need the rocket booster per se but it is one option. There is that ECT Propulsion and the supposedly more efficient alternative to firing off HEAT and EFP projectiles DARPA has been working on.

The drones as the weapon smashing into the target is just one possible solution. A small drone can pack a directional frag or EFP warhead for example as a stand off weapon with the drone being destroyed in the attack or having a delivery system to launch or fire the warhead but keep the drone as part of the swarm. Even a relatively small drone could feasibly hold a one off warhead.

A drone like that as part of swarm would be interesting to say the least. Might be like a cluster munition but rather then going from above a swarm could attack from several angles at once and at varying ranges. Doing things like flying point blank onto a target and then using their weapon. Or if we use AFP's smash into em version several drones attack the same target trying to get as many to smack into as possible.

There are currently warheads that can fit in your hand now that can knock out or seriously damage a tank in one shot. There are smaller warheads for simple top down attack shaped charges that can carve through several inches of RHA steel armor. But I don't think future drone designs would narrowly limited to just a couple of common warheads as an attack drone.

If by smart bullet you mean the EXACTO then yes. It has whatever power it gets from initial launch but if it is more like the LRLAM it has its own rocket booster and base bleed system attached to a warhead with a guidance system to boost its range and accuracy. But I get the feeling demarquis means something that is more like free flying type drone rather then launch and done type system. Something that can buzz around the battle field for a while at least. I am getting vibes of the drones from the matrix or the drone swarm from the more recent call of duty game.

Drone size,construction, armament is not necessarily all that hard in and of itself. It is the computing and networking of more then a few drones. Now if we are talking about something rather simple like a ball drone rolling on the ground with a bunch of buddies that is one thing. But if we are talking flying drones working in a coordinated and complex pattern possibly autonomously that is where i would say the sticking is.

Attempting to network a thousand or even a couple hundred drones to all move together in a related group in a complex and intelligent manner to carry out the mission is the big hurdle.

Who watches the watchmen?

For loitering, how about a helium balloon? You could just base all the drones on the MOTHERBLIMP and have them deploy when needed.

Because a balloon says please please shoot me for some reason. :P

Who watches the watchmen?

And when the bad guys stick their heads out to shoot at it, that's when you hit them with the drones!

Besides, airships have always been crazy difficult to shoot down, especially ones not filled with flammable gas (even the old hydrogen balloons were ridiculously difficult to shoot down, since the hydrogen inside wouldn't explode or even burn easily without any oxygen inside the balloon). They're just slow and troublesome to operate and maintain.

Because I like to be contrary, I'm going to argue for the "man-portable weapons" side of the debate.

Another issue with drones is the potential for electronic warfare to seriously degrade their capabilities - a gun, unless it is hooked up to a sensor of some sort, is not going to be particularly affected by a jammer. Drones, however, will be far more susceptible to electronic countermeasures (and in the case of mini-drones, their ability to counteract that will be more limited).

Actually, I'd say a high ROF weapon like a MG would be pretty good for dealing with drone swarms. Shotgun type weapons may also be of use, depending on the particulars.

It doesn't matter as much if the drones are small and nimble if you can simply fill the air with so much lead that something is going to hit them - and your bog standard bullets are going to be much more cost effective than the electronics etc. that will be necessary even for small swarming drones.

edited 22nd Nov '14 10:58:47 AM by Flanker66

Locking you up on radar since '09

AFP: We thought it was a balloon turns out it is a piñata.

Balloons enjoyed a relatively short life span as being hard to kill. Then things like better AA guns and proper incendiary bullets came along. Modern munitions never mind future ones are a lot nastier. What kind of a hole would a directed fragmentation air to air do to a balloon? What about auto-cannons and modern aerial rockets? You could possibly even drop bombs on them. Hell one of the more effective pre-incendiary anti-balloon weapons was just a satchel of flechettes strapped to the side of a plane dropped on them balloon.

A machine gun without some sort of targeting aide would actually not be the that great. On a human sized target at common engagement ranges out of a 10 round burst you might get 3 hits on a man sized target under good combat conditions. Against a swarm of fast small moving objects you will be lucky to hit one cleanly. The shotgun is a better idea but their projectiles disperse rapidly over short distance.

What you need is something to carry the AOE attack to the target. Think less bullets and more flak shells. Say for example we have a automated gun system that can fire one of two common shell types in a broad sense. Not getting into multi modal fuses and multi-role shells atm. The gun system engages the drone swarm. The first time it fires the AP type shells. While the gun is guided it can hit the swarm but realistically it is only going to swat a few drones per shot. Now instead of the AP take an air burst shell and fire into the swarm and have it burst. Not only is it going to get more hits per shell on the drones it is likely to get more kills per shot.

Matt mentioned a high velocity wind or blast dispersing them you could use powerful blast frag shells to not only destroy several drones at once but to help break up the swarms cohesiveness at point of the attack.

edited 22nd Nov '14 12:12:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

As I recall, the flechettes never worked all that well. Partially because the plane intended to carry them couldn't fly high enough to reach the balloons in question.

And of course the answer to all that is MORE BALLOONS.

re: the gun being equipped with a sensor: If it has no sensor equipped to it, it can't be jammed, but it doesn't need to be, as it cannot be aimed either. Even the Mark I Eyeball is notoriously prone to interference, as anyone who has looked at the sun can attest to.

Well the Mk 1 Human also has hard limits on accuracy of physical movement and reaction speeds.

Who watches the watchmen?

@Tuefel (1750): "I am somewhat surprised no one has really thought this up. One of the best possible defenses against a drone swarm would be your own drone swarm."

Agree on both counts- that it's surprising no one has popularized this idea yet, and that the best defense would be your own smart-swarm (although not the only defense, see below).

@Matt II (1751): "So what exactly do these drones look like..." As Tuefel went on to mention, there would be different types for different purposes. Helecopters for target acquisition, airplanes for attack, "dragonflys" (which, in fact, do flap their wings) for dense cover penetration.

As I thought further about the speed issue, I realized that these drones dont really have to be all that fast. They dont have to outrun bullets, merely move faster than a human can track multiple targets with a shoulder-fired weapon. 40-50 miles per hour ought to do it for a bird-sized object. Let's be generous and suppose that there are only 7-8 of these things moving in on a rifleman, coming simultaneously from different directions and altitudes, the low flying ones using the terrain for maximum advantage. The rifleman would have to detect and align his weapon in the general direction of all 8 of them, before they can get close enough to discharge their munition (I was previously assuming some sort of "contact and explode" arrangement, but again Tuefel has come up with some interesting ideas along those lines). Even with guided ammo, my money is on the swarm.

Now, you might point out that squads of soldiers cover each other, which is true. A fire team would have to position themselves to cover not only the four horizontal directions (front, flanks and rear), but also up. I figure it would take a minimum of eight men to cover the entire 3-D hemisphere around them. If you augment them with some sort of motion detector with at least of 100 meter range, capable of detecting and tracking the mini-drones against the background clutter, and some sort of semi-automated aiming system, which relies on the human merely to pull the trigger. This arrangement might be enough to defend the squad from the 50 or 60 mini-drones flying at them; but at that point arent we better off with some sort of computer-controlled auto-cannon or rapid fire pulse laser on a small tracked vehicle or some such arrangement? What, exactly, are we putting squishy humans on this battlefield for? What's the advantage we are trying to preserve? Personally, I think drones are going to replace human soldiers for the same reason they will eventually replace human pilots- to reduce the loss of life.

@Tuefel (1752): "Attempting to network a thousand or even a couple hundred drones to all move together in a related group in a complex and intelligent manner to carry out the mission is the big hurdle."

Ah, but that's the precise reason I specified a smart-swarm. Presuming it can be done, of course, that greatly reduced the computing power needed. 50 or so drones can coordinate with each other using simple processes and shared computational capacity. Coordinating the swarms will eventually overwhelm the system, but that's what the controller units are for.

@Flanker 66: 'Drones, however, will be far more susceptible to electronic countermeasures (and in the case of mini-drones, their ability to counteract that will be more limited).

This is true, although I dont understand why you think mini-drones are more vulnerable than any other kind. Solid state circuits are harder to fry than you might think. I dont know of an ECM right now that can scramble the microchips on board a self-directed munition, although I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will correct me. Jamming their sensors might be easier, although there are ways to protect them from that. I'm assuming some sort of miniaturized IR scanning capability. I can see some mini-drones using a radio signal to guide in a larger missile.

@Tuefel (1757): "Now instead of the AP take an air burst shell and fire into the swarm and have it burst. Not only is it going to get more hits per shell on the drones it is likely to get more kills per shot.

Matt mentioned a high velocity wind or blast dispersing them you could use powerful blast frag shells to not only destroy several drones at once but to help break up the swarms cohesiveness at point of the attack."

These are good points. I imagine such a weapon arrangement on a small tracked and lightly armored vehicle of some kind, following the friendly swarm-launchers around and providing area protection. This bears thinking about.

I think this would provide a very innovative component of a hard sci-fi novel.

I found a non-technical article on the US Air Forces work on "Micro Air Vehicles", including a video. Check it out!

edited 22nd Nov '14 6:02:10 PM by demarquis

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

Taira: That one already made the rounds a while back But given it is a cool vid post away.

Who watches the watchmen?

A good outline of 20 Minutes into the Future tech.

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

^ Welcome to my point earlier when we were talking Iron Dome and such. The cheaper answers like lasers and railguns will defeat any missile in the point defensive role. In a straight missile fight, it's strictly numbers. Who can fire more rather than who can fire better stuff.

edited 22nd Nov '14 8:40:38 PM by MajorTom

Tom: Um no. You are still arguing from bad position to begin with. Overwhelming a one at a time defense like your laser is even easier. Your point still does not stand. The missiles still outperform the laser hands down.

edited 22nd Nov '14 8:50:17 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

^ The challenge shows that. What good are a few missiles vs much cheaper options used en-masse? One awesome missile cannot stop 100 cheap crappy missiles under any circumstance. A few awesome missiles cannot stop a continuous attack. A few laser batteries on the other hand can stop many missiles almost indefinitely. It doesn't take long for a Free-Electron Laser or X-Ray laser to destroy a missile. Aim, pulse, move on. It can engage so long as it is operational.

Railguns can be even better since they have that dual-purpose pinch. Hit the incoming missile and then train the gun on the foe that fired on you.

If missile capabilities were so god-tier they put everything else to shame, why are laser and railgun projects even being pursued in the first place? Exactly what I'm talking about is why. Volume and costs. You can simply overwhelm awesome missiles with more (cheap) missiles. If one vessel has 6 awesome missiles that never miss, you fire 7 cheap missiles at it for an easy win. If one vessel has two railgun/laser batteries, you don't know how many shots to fire at it or what kind of shots as both can stop nearly anything. It might be three shots, it might be three hundred, there's really no planning for how to counter such defenses other than continuous attack. Ask yourself this, how many foes can fire 300 missiles in a single engagement? How many can do so on a regular basis? Few and fewer.

For the same costs as your fewer number of awesome missiles, you can defend yourself many many more times over with lasers and railguns.

edited 22nd Nov '14 9:21:49 PM by MajorTom

Tom: I hate to break to you but your lasers don't cut it period. Yes it does take lasers a while to destroy anything. Last i checked it takes the laser several seconds to put a small hole in a black rubber zodiac. Several seconds to shoot down a slow and low flying drone. The laser is not going to cut it with massed missile attacks. It certainly is not going to compare missile interceptors or gun interceptors we have now. You are living in a fantasy land. Nothing in that article validates your point at all. The square peg does not fit the round hole.

If cheap missiles can eventually overwhelm a more accurate, flexible, and responsive system the more limited one is not going to magically do better it is going to fare worse. If they can run down the missiles the laser system is plain fucked. There is simply now way it can handle the volume.

For your sloppy bullshit cut rate defense you are going to lose something a lot more expensive then some missiles like your whole damn ship when the missile groups easily over whelm it and eat it alive.

edited 22nd Nov '14 10:04:51 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

That's why you don't do centre-mass targets for lasers, but targets of opportunity like cameras and other delicate sensors. Also, unless the other guy is using nukes, it doesn't matter if the missile is down 20 km away or just 2, the result is the same, the missile is defeated, and if you can swat 20 missiles at 20 km vs 5 at 200 km, then aiming at 20 km is a good idea.

edited 23rd Nov '14 12:06:27 AM by MattII

Just burning a camera or external sensor or two might not stop the missile though. Several variants have multiple trackers built in including inertial guidance. Though inertial guidance is mercifully less accurate then other systems. The ones that have inertial you might just have to smack around but it would be easier then if it had all the sensors still working.

A dazzler laser that is just powerful enough to mess with exposed electronics helps other defensive systems as well as possibly reducing accuracy would be both easier to do and easier to run. Especially rather then a laser that needs to burn through skins fins, and noses power and heat wise never mind more compact by comparison. Rail guns unfortunately are also very power hungry and produce a lot of heat. Kinda hard to meet the same kind of power at impact though for a kinetic weapon like that. I don't think even a round from the Goal Keeper CIWS has as much punch and that thing is using the GAU-8.

Or were you talking more of burning off things like antenna and flash frying things like exposed electronics?

edited 23rd Nov '14 12:51:44 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I was taking about basically going after any exposed electronics. Aeriels might actually be easier since they're transmitting, and thus can be picked up, unlike cameras.

True but they are also rather small on most missiles no more then a few inches on the ones I have seen. But that also means there is not much material and would be pretty easy to cook.

Who watches the watchmen?

If the missiles are cheap enough it may be possible to baffle them with ecm. This might not stop all of them but it could cut down the work the laser point defense have to do. Probably won't do anything against ballistics, though.

The reason I believe mini-drones are more vulnerable is simple: the size (and weight!) of sensor they can mount is limited, and hence the sensor's resolution and sophistication will also be limited. Therefore, the sensor's ability to counteract and burn through ECM is going to be similarly limited (which will impact its ability to perform its mission as it will need to get much closer to get the same quality of "image").

There is only going to be so much you can do to improve that while keeping the mini-drone... er... mini, and since I get the impression that these drones must be cheap (they would have to be if you're going to fling 50-60 at people) the rise in cost as you try to make the sensors more sophisticated will mean that you can only send fewer drones, which in turn makes defending against them a much more viable proposition. Although it's a bit wonky, here's a rule of thumb: cheap, numerous, high performance - pick two.

Hell, it isn't even necessary to outright blind the drone - only introduce so much uncertainty that it cannot reliably distinguish between targets and non-targets. As for the self-directed munition thing, I'd point out that many aircraft carry jammers designed to defeat missiles - which are self-directed munitions, after all - with success. The radio signal would also be vulnerable to jamming - if memory serves, in the past an AWACS aircraft orbiting overhead has been used to jam radio and mobile signals. And the electronics mounted on such an aircraft are going to be much more powerful than anything you can reasonably mount to a miniature drone (even if we assume advances in technology, as anything that will benefit the mini-drone's electronics will also benefit the AWACS).

edited 23rd Nov '14 5:45:20 AM by Flanker66

Locking you up on radar since '09

Which laser are you talking about? Because the one currently on that Navy ship does that. An FEL or X-ray laser does not.

Even worse, you're bringing up a target that is thermally and electrically resistant. Metal skinned missiles have no such mojo.

Besides the whole 5 seconds to burn a missile thing isn't what FEL's and others are used in. They go the huge ass pulse. Pulse the laser for the same (or more) energy as it takes to burn through in 5 seconds. They can do that, and that's what lasers are being designed to do in such applications as missile defense.

Tom: Thin rubber is not thermally resistant in fashion that would make them notably useful to resist any thermal based thing in first place. Rubber tends to melt very easily and a laser against a black back ground should be easier. The drone which is made of metal and was moving slowly took a while to burn down as well.

Try again tom.

edited 23rd Nov '14 9:37:19 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?