DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Drones » Drone-​​Killer Designed

Drone-​​Killer Designed

peregrine_loiter.jpgI don’t pre­tend to know the first thing about design­ing a drone — much less des­gin­ing a drone-​​killer. But when I told the folks at Popular Mechanics that Darpa was look­ing for pro­pos­als for a weapon that could take out robo-​​planes, a team of artist– and engineer-​​types got busy. This is what they dreamed up.

Share |

August 25th, 2005 | Drones | 13821 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/08/25/drone-killer-designed/Drone-Killer+Designed2005-08-25+13%3A04%3A33noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Sub Base Saved | Baghdad Battle, First Hand » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. The Cenobyte says:
    August 25, 2005 at 10:10 am

    Why wouldn’t you just use air-​​to-​​air missles or can­non slung under another drone? It seems to me that drones have got to be slow easy tar­gets, why go crazy mak­ing a drone to kill drone.
    Now a sys­tem designed to help hold air supremacy is areas where we have not move in ground forces yet, while free­ing up other air­craft to take the fight to the enemy I might see a use for them, but I still think that just a larger drone with weapons hung from it would be a bet­ter idea.

    Reply
  2. Nicholas Weaver says:
    August 25, 2005 at 11:17 am

    It’s a prob­lem I’ve thought about alot, in the “hobby” sort of way. (I’m a pro­gram­mer, not an engi­neer).
    I think the key for an air-​​to-​​air anti-​​drone is air­burst­ing muni­tions, eg the Objective Crew Served Weapon and oth­ers. These muni­tions fly a
    pre­pro­grammed dis­tance and explode, like the fuses in WWII anti-​​aircraft can­nons (although they shifted to prox­im­ity fuses when they became avail­able).
    So rather than mak­ing it a suicide-​​drone (con­sid­er­ing US pro­cure­ment costs, a los­ing bat­tle), the drone iden­ti­fies tar­gets and then shoots them down with basi­cally a “flak gun”.
    The other key is STEREO cam­eras. Mount the cam­eras on the wings, and that way the IR/​visible cam­eras can com­pute range based on par­al­lax. So you can iden­tify the tar­get 1km out, get its range and head­ing, lead the tar­get, and shoot it down.
    Of course, cheap prox­im­ity fuses makes this even better/​easier, but may not be in-​​budget, while OICW and OCSW is esti­mated to be $30/​shot or so, and being able to use a (soon to be) exist­ing weapon’s ammu­ni­tion is also a big win.
    Finally, I think a turbo-​​piston engine, rather than just a pis­ton engine, might be a good idea. You play with the boost level to both mod­u­late power and to allow much higher alti­tude oper­a­tion.
    –
    As for an air-​​to-​​air mis­sile, those things are HEAVY. And if you can only carry one or two, you are in trou­ble and might as well make the plane the mis­sile (which it is in this case).
    And the big prob­lem: An anti-​​drone drone has to be cheap. If an oppo­nent can field a com­pe­tent $10,000 drone, with a $10M bud­get you can be fac­ing 1000 simul­tan­ious bogies. Not pleas­ant for US air defense plan­ning.
    Thus you really need a anti-​​drone drone which is both inex­pen­sive (so the US can field hun­dreds in the­ater) and which can attack mul­ti­ple tar­gets (elim­i­nates both sui­cide and Air-​​to-​​air mis­siles). Thus I think a distance-​​fused and/​or prox-​​fused flak can­non approach is the most feasible.

    Reply
  3. Eric T says:
    August 25, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    The best way to han­dle this would be a new fam­ily of Multi-​​Function radars.
    Imagine an AN/​APG-​​77 (from the F-​​22) type 4 faceted radar panel (3 sides with the forth on top for full 360 cov­er­age with­out rota­tion)
    You ask How can radar by itself help?
    Simple, start­ing with the AN/​APG-​​77, the radar can ini­ti­ate a directed energy attack. Basically, the radar can focus a tight beam of microwave energy on an air­borne tar­get. If any­one left a fork in the microwave, you know that this will cause havoc with any tar­gets avion­ics.
    If the pulse fails to bring down the tar­get, it can func­tion as a fire-​​direction set for follow-​​up attack by CIWS, ground-​​based SAMS, etc.
    This sys­tem can actu­ally be deployed in a HUMMER and con­nect to a net­work of ground-​​based defenses and defend against all air­borne threats. These can include drones, air­craft, PGMs, etc.
    Because of the LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) aspect of the AN/​APG-​​77, enemy SEAD assets will have a harder time track­ing it, there­fore giv­ing the AN/​APG-​​77 based sys­tem more time to defeat the SEAD mission.

    Reply
  4. MzK says:
    August 25, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    What about design­ing a bet­ter SAM ? Why does it have to loi­ter or a plane first ?

    Reply
  5. Vern Gambino says:
    August 25, 2005 at 9:51 pm

    My first ques­tion is . Why destroy some­thing if you can cap­ture it?
    Second could a light weight net of entan­gling fibers be loaded onto an exist­ing uav and the addi­tional gps track­ing com­pact radar and real­time satel­lite links be uti­lized to tar­get enemy UAVs. When iden­ti­fied They would descend within a rea­son­able dis­tance and dis­charge a can­is­ter that if spun and the edges of our net is just slightly heaver than the rest it will draw the net out and open to snag the uav as it falls.
    This serves sev­eral pur­poses. the craft would be dis­abled and fall from the sky. the chance of the craft sur­viv­ing this fall is a fifty fifty draw but if it is dam­aged beyond repair then its com­po­nents could be used to teach us what the enemy is doing and if they sur­vive they could be rebuilt to use for our own pur­poses and act as a fifth col­umn behind enemy lines.
    The cap­ture and con­ver­sion of these UAVs could be of greater ben­e­fit than the devel­op­ment of a destruc­tive drone. I sug­gest it may be bet­ter to cap­ture these small unmanned arial craft than to destroy them with expen­sive mis­siles or muni­tions of any kind.
    Woody

    Reply
  6. Jeremiah says:
    August 28, 2005 at 2:02 am

    “And the big prob­lem: An anti-​​drone drone has to be cheap. If an oppo­nent can field a com­pe­tent $10,000 drone, with a $10M bud­get you can be fac­ing 1000 simul­tan­ious bogies. Not pleas­ant for US air defense plan­ning.“
    And then it’s going to be a $1000 drone, then a $100 drone. Then they’re going to cost next to noth­ing.
    That’s why the US needs to get and main­tain drone supremacy on the ground and in the air.
    Remember kids, drone war­fare is just a part of any nutri­tious meshwar.

    Reply
  7. JOHN H. says:
    August 30, 2005 at 9:36 am

    Why not some­thing based on read­ily avail­able cheap radio con­trolled air­craft, only mod­i­fied and enhanced to what­ever pur­pose required? Possibly with a elctro­mag­netic amplfied pulse weapon to shoot down hos­tile craft etc?
    Alternatively using forms of genet­i­cally mod­i­fied cloned swarms of types of insects or birds to patrol and inter­cept air­borne threats with cyber­im­plants as behav­ior mod­i­fiers also incor­po­rat­ing facets of nanotechnology?

    Reply
  8. Spriglief says:
    March 20, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    How about an anti drone/​drone armed with a shot­gun type weapon. Just design a weapons pack for the cur­rent class of recon drone like Raven. The goal should be to make enamy drones no longer cheap as they are forced to upgrade their drones to get past ours. Soon the F22 will be cost effective.

    Reply
  9. eve isk says:
    August 6, 2008 at 2:42 am

    In order to make a lit­tle bit of hun­dreds of thou­sands of eve isk, I com­manded all of the staff hung up the num­ber on the com­puter, and help me mine the mining.

    Reply
  10. fiesta Gold says:
    August 6, 2008 at 2:44 am

    I have been of great suc­cess at finally, my rank already prac­ticed 43 lev­els and we have own a large of fiesta Gold.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage