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
  • Af-Cam
  • 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
  • Crazy Ivan
  • 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
  • F-35 Watch
  • 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 Bubble with Joe Buff
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • 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

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • 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 | 13811 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
  11. antigov says:
    January 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Why don’t we keep our noses out of other persons business? Maybe be concerned
    about our own terrorists( our government) !!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I reckon that the J-10 would be a good bet. Y'all...
      Chimp
    • Raptor Down (58-40)
      This story never gets old. This plane was never meant to be this...
      DeepThinker
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      um… they already have them. Hunters and...
      Buongi
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Interesting, though, from my experience, many...
      Buongi
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Not completely true-remember the Navy can be very picky...
      Chops
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I think by the end of the year some of those flags are...
      Tom
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I am not advocating non use of F22s&F35s in daylight...
      Chops
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Guys this platform is about CAS but not in the...
      ANGRYTACP
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Blaming the contractors for a development system created...
      G Lof
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      'Nor really stealthy'? LOL! – Only in...
      SMSgt Mac
  • 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| © 2010 Military Advantage