What about an update to a solution from WWII. You can drape nets down, across from the things around targets you want to protect.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/the-blimps-the-defenders-of-the-skies-in-two-world-wars.html?edg-c=1

superbizzy73 wrote:

https://youtu.be/1DXpPmpmcak
I know it's a glorified advertisement, and I'm not sure of the cost...but this system, integrated with some form of aerial detection (even from a drone), seems the "jack of all trades" answer. Not sure if there's a "master of none" part to the system, though...probably cost?

That system will be priced so high that it will be unaffordable for anything other that very high value points (equal to the White House). It has a separate acquisition radar besides the targeting radar(s); can take out helicopters and cruise missiles; it does much more than what I see this thread being about.

The type of system I have been advocating above would not need high rates of fire, 30 rpm would be plenty. Every shot would be targeted precisely (although it might be possible to automatically swap ammunition to something more conventional and up the firing rate to give it helicopter capability too).

STT757 wrote:

What about an update to a solution from WWII. You can drape nets down, across from the things around targets you want to protect.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/the-blimps-the-defenders-of-the-skies-in-two-world-wars.html?edg-c=1

Not quite the same kind of conflict, however a veteran of the Falklands War, serving at the time as the pilot of the legendary RN Wessex HAS.3 'Humphrey', reflected later that no one had even thought of using the still stored barrage balloons, then at RAF Abingdon, as a way to disrupt air attacks in the confines of San Carlos Water.
Admittedly it was hard to make the link then, even the war they were fighting seemed out of place in the Cold War let alone WW2.

The Pentagon has announced a new $400mn package of military aid for Ukraine for the delivery of Hawk air defence systems and tactical drones as well as the refurbishment of advanced tanks to be sent from the Czech Republic.

https://www.ft.com/content/666fc67d-850 ... d7b194dd42

How many Hawk systems does the US have in storage? Will they work against drones?

Wiki says they have a 54kg warhead. Sounds like a sledgehammer to crack a nut to me. Still, if they would never be used by the US and they work, all for the best.

Apologise for my ignorance but what is a tactical drone?

art wrote:

The Pentagon has announced a new $400mn package of military aid for Ukraine for the delivery of Hawk air defence systems and tactical drones as well as the refurbishment of advanced tanks to be sent from the Czech Republic.

https://www.ft.com/content/666fc67d-850 ... d7b194dd42

How many Hawk systems does the US have in storage? Will they work against drones?

Wiki says they have a 54kg warhead. Sounds like a sledgehammer to crack a nut to me. Still, if they would never be used by the US and they work, all for the best.

Apologise for my ignorance but what is a tactical drone?

Tactical Drones tend to be ones that can be used by infantry and ground forces in general, these Iranian ones are though being used for in a ‘sub strategic’ role, not on the battlefield but against civilian infrastructure.
It’s a strategy of some desperation, they are used on battlefields too of course.

As for HAWK and more modern systems, their main ‘trade’ will be Kalibur and KH-101 missiles, along with the S300’s SAMs crudely repurposed.

GDB wrote:

Tactical Drones tend to be ones that can be used by infantry and ground forces in general, these Iranian ones are though being used for in a ‘sub strategic’ role, not on the battlefield but against civilian infrastructure.
It’s a strategy of some desperation, they are used on battlefields too of course.

As for HAWK and more modern systems, their main ‘trade’ will be Kalibur and KH-101 missiles, along with the S300’s SAMs crudely repurposed.

So HAWK and tactical drones do not help against the drone threat. Ukraine reports shooting down about 75% of the attack drones used by Russia. How are they doing that, I wonder? A combination of rifle+machine gun fire coupled with MANPAD's?

art wrote:

GDB wrote:

Tactical Drones tend to be ones that can be used by infantry and ground forces in general, these Iranian ones are though being used for in a ‘sub strategic’ role, not on the battlefield but against civilian infrastructure.
It’s a strategy of some desperation, they are used on battlefields too of course.

As for HAWK and more modern systems, their main ‘trade’ will be Kalibur and KH-101 missiles, along with the S300’s SAMs crudely repurposed.

So HAWK and tactical drones do not help against the drone threat. Ukraine reports shooting down about 75% of the attack drones used by Russia. How are they doing that, I wonder? A combination of rifle+machine gun fire coupled with MANPAD's?

Most likely yes, witnesses say you can hear their distinctive sound coming. Autocannon too most likely, like ZSU-23-2's and similar.
(Reminds me of my Mother's memories of the V-1's, like them, having little to no value on the actual battlefield).

Vintage wrote:

superbizzy73 wrote:

https://youtu.be/1DXpPmpmcak
I know it's a glorified advertisement, and I'm not sure of the cost...but this system, integrated with some form of aerial detection (even from a drone), seems the "jack of all trades" answer. Not sure if there's a "master of none" part to the system, though...probably cost?

That system will be priced so high that it will be unaffordable for anything other that very high value points (equal to the White House). It has a separate acquisition radar besides the targeting radar(s); can take out helicopters and cruise missiles; it does much more than what I see this thread being about.

The type of system I have been advocating above would not need high rates of fire, 30 rpm would be plenty. Every shot would be targeted precisely (although it might be possible to automatically swap ammunition to something more conventional and up the firing rate to give it helicopter capability too).

So, a "Skynex Lite" as it were. It seems there's enough weapon systems to fit the bill. It also seems the detection, tracking, and targeting of the target is where the money should be spent. Integration of that system with the proper (as in, not overkill) weaponry would definitely be an interesting system to see. BTW, I'm definitely agreeing with you more and more. Size the solution to the problem.

superbizzy73 wrote:

So, a "Skynex Lite" as it were. It seems there's enough weapon systems to fit the bill. It also seems the detection, tracking, and targeting of the target is where the money should be spent. Integration of that system with the proper (as in, not overkill) weaponry would definitely be an interesting system to see. BTW, I'm definitely agreeing with you more and more. Size the solution to the problem.

If a base bleed 20 mm round could maintain a 3,000 feet per minute average velocity, it would take it 5.5 seconds to reach a target that is three miles away, double for six miles. It seems to me that a radar system could very accurately predict where a target traveling at 75 fps (50 mph) will be in 5.5 seconds. I believe such a system would be accurate out to at least six miles.

A drone is an under powered craft flying at low altitude (no energy to spare); it is incapable of significant or continued evasive action even if it tried. The odds are that it will be flying toward the radar/gun, so it's effective angular movement might be one tenth or so of what it would be if it were flying laterally across the horizon; thus the speed the gun system encounters is more like 5mph instead of 50 mph. And so on.

The radar would track both the target and the shell, and update the predicted hit position - and fire the next round before the first round makes its hit (or close encounter).

I cant understand these people who want to use an F-35 as a radar set.

New Delhi, Nov 3 (PTI) The Indian Army has started the process to procure 120 loitering munitions and 10 aerial targeting systems to bolster its military might along the frontier with China, officials said on Thursday.

https://www.ptinews.com/news/national/a ... 51402.html

Another Indian source claims the aerial targeting systems will be required to have a range of 100km.
https://idrw.org/army-starts-process-to ... ore-298170

If such loitering targeting systems could be deployed in conjunction with loitering UAV's capable of attacking incoming low speed strike UAV's, would that be a practical , cost effective way of countering strike UAV's?

PS What weight of fragmentation explosive would a missile need in order to neutralise a strike UAV? If very little, several very light missiles could be carried by loitering UAV's, allowing each loitering UAV to attack several strike UAV's

art wrote:

New Delhi, Nov 3 (PTI) The Indian Army has started the process to procure 120 loitering munitions and 10 aerial targeting systems to bolster its military might along the frontier with China, officials said on Thursday.

https://www.ptinews.com/news/national/a ... 51402.html

Another Indian source claims the aerial targeting systems will be required to have a range of 100km.
https://idrw.org/army-starts-process-to ... ore-298170

If such loitering targeting systems could be deployed in conjunction with loitering UAV's capable of attacking incoming low speed strike UAV's, would that be a practical , cost effective way of countering strike UAV's?

A UAV is an 'unmanned aerial vehicle', aka drone; a loitering targeting system is a drone with a camera.

art wrote:

PS What weight of fragmentation explosive would a missile need in order to neutralise a strike UAV? If very little, several very light missiles could be carried by loitering UAV's, allowing each loitering UAV to attack several strike UAV's

The missile doesn't necessarily need any explosive, it could just be a bullet.

Mark Sumner's Field guide to Drones of Ukraine (part 1)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1 ... ine-Part-1

https://youtu.be/vX8Z2MDYX3g

This is from 8 years ago. I wonder what ever happened to this round. Seems perfect for an anti-drone system.

superbizzy73 wrote:

https://youtu.be/vX8Z2MDYX3g
This is from 8 years ago. I wonder what ever happened to this round. Seems perfect for an anti-drone system.

That round needs a laser designator to operate; if you can aim the laser dead on why can't you also aim the gun dead on? Well ok there is target movement and possible wind factor, but still the second shot will be corrected for windage or unexpected movement in the system I described.

One way to get the laser pointed dead on would be to use an old fashioned parabolic antenna instead of a phased array, the laser could be attached to the antenna and it would point wherever the radar is pointing, but then a second radar would be needed to track the bullet.

Using system I suggest, with a flat panel active electronically-scanned array (AESA), both targets can be tracked simultaneously and the data fed to a computer to do the calculations necessary to make corrections for the second round while the first is still in flight.

Ok so the F-35 is a ridiculous suggestion but now we are talking about radar guided bullets and radar/laser guiding systems that don't exist.

The whole point of using smaller rounds instead of laser guided missiles/rockets is to save on the cost per kill against very cheap drones. Now adding the laser guided part to the smaller bullet will just end up with a ridiculously expensive bullet.

The only solution to this problem is to use a larger, cheaper, dumb bullet that has basic air burst capability. No advanced aiming or laser guiding is required. It is fairly easy to get a big bullet within 5m of the drone and the proximity explosive takes it out.

$50 million helicopter firing $100 dumb bullets.
$5 million vehicle with $1,000 air burst bullets.
$1 million vehicle with $10,000 guided bullet/rocket.
$100,000 manpad with a $50,000 bullet/missile.

What is cheaper depends on how many bullets you expect to shoot. If the APKWS rockets can come down to $10,000 each then it clearly wins when it comes to the compromise between range, low recoil and cost.

I could see a 70mm laser guided rocket becoming standard on all vehicle and helicopter types. It will evolve to do air to air, air to surface, surface to air and surface to surface. The lower recoil allows a 500kg drone to have a single missile on each wing.

A dedicated grounded based air burst air defense system probably won't get funding. The US will just use a $10,000 rocket to kill a $10,000 drone. They have the funds.

RJMAZ wrote:

Ok so the F-35 is a ridiculous suggestion but now we are talking about radar guided bullets and radar/laser guiding systems that don't exist.
The whole point of using smaller rounds instead of laser guided missiles/rockets is to save on the cost per kill against very cheap drones. Now adding the laser guided part to the smaller bullet will just end up with a ridiculously expensive bullet.

If you read the post above, you will see that the laser bullet idea had been discussed and discounted. superbizzy73 had posted the link to the laser bullets info, which apparently did exist as a test; so I answered.

RJMAZ wrote:

The only solution to this problem is to use a larger, cheaper, dumb bullet that has basic air burst capability.
No advanced aiming or laser guiding is required. It is fairly easy to get a big bullet within 5m of the drone and the proximity explosive takes it out.

An explosive shell is not a cheap shell and it has to be triggered somehow, all the options for that add complexity and cost money; an explosive shell would be expensive all around and could not safely be used to defend civilian sites.

RJMAZ wrote:

What is cheaper depends on how many bullets you expect to shoot. If the APKWS rockets can come down to $10,000 each then it clearly wins when it comes to the compromise between range, low recoil and cost.

I could see a 70mm laser guided rocket becoming standard on all vehicle and helicopter types. It will evolve to do air to air, air to surface, surface to air and surface to surface. The lower recoil allows a 500kg drone to have a single missile on each wing.

A dedicated grounded based air burst air defense system probably won't get funding. The US will just use a $10,000 rocket to kill a $10,000 drone. They have the funds.

The title of this thread is: "How to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles?", the subject is not limited to the US military industrial complex.

The proposal I made above is for a system that would have a firing rate of about 30 rounds per minute (every two seconds max), although it should be possible to swap ammo on the fly to AP rounds and up the firing rate to take out helicopters.

It actually is pretty easy to hit a target dead on if one is willing to buy the radar and gun laying gear. Hitting a moving target certainly can be done with a computer calculating the predicted location of the target based on its already known flight path and telling the gun where to aim. These systems exist currently; they have existed since the 1950s when they used computers based on vacuum tubes; modern computers with virtually unlimited memory and cycle times below 20ns coupled with ASEA radar offer the ability to update the targeting data before the first shell even reaches the target.

If an army equips itself with missiles to defeat drones, the opponent then has the option of sending swarms of drones, or decoys (false targets).

RJMAZ wrote:

The whole point of using smaller rounds instead of laser guided missiles/rockets is to save on the cost per kill against very cheap drones. Now adding the laser guided part to the smaller bullet will just end up with a ridiculously expensive bullet.

Why not skip the bullet part and go straight to the direct fire laser?

The Army has been working with several vendors to refine and strengthen its Stryker-fired laser and expects to have it operational within just the next few years.

https://warriormaven.com/land/new-stryk ... ir-attacks

Or this

https://www.popsci.com/technology/firin ... er-weapon/

bt

Is there a need to actually shoot down a drone?
In the case of a suicide drone with an internal navigation system, sure.
But for a scout/target aquisition/remotely-piloted attack drone, neutralizing its optical sensor will render it useless.
If you can find the drone, firing a directed beam of moderate power laser should be able to permanently damage its CCD optical sensors.

RJMAZ wrote:

regarding airborne counter attackers using bullets; is that really the right way, if during shooting 80% of the bullets will miss the drone and hit the ground (infrastructure, people etc.) behind it?

No, the Apache would fire a single bullet and hit the drone. [/quote]

A single bullet, huh? Do you know anything about the cannon on the Apache? It's defined as an area weapon, meaning that it's accuracy isn't stupendous and it's meant to be used on an area sized target on the ground. It is not meant to be a one bullet kills all sort of weapon, especially not on an aerial target. If you don't believe me, go study any of the hundreds of Apache gun cam videos on Youtube. You'll quickly figure out that they're not nearly as accurate as you think they are and they aren't meant to be.

I honestly couldn't think of a worse platform to suppress UAVs with than an Apache. It's slow, the Longbow radar is short ranged, and it's currently lacking any sort of AA armament other than the Stinger, which is meant for self defense.

mats01776 wrote:

Is there a need to actually shoot down a drone?
In the case of a suicide drone with an internal navigation system, sure.
But for a scout/target aquisition/remotely-piloted attack drone, neutralizing its optical sensor will render it useless.
If you can find the drone, firing a directed beam of moderate power laser should be able to permanently damage its CCD optical sensors.

Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all (low flying) drones, not just optical drones. Lasers may come into being sometime in the far off future, but for now there is a reason the demos of experiments are from naval ships, ships can satisfy the huge power needs of lasers.

Vintage wrote:

Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all (low flying) drones, not just optical drones.

My emphasis. Why not ask for divine intervention whilst you're at it? 90-95% accuracy is the very best any weapon is going to achieve, and I doubt that many can manage even that.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all (low flying) drones, not just optical drones.

My emphasis. Why not ask for divine intervention whilst you're at it? 90-95% accuracy is the very best any weapon is going to achieve, and I doubt that many can manage even that.

OK, change my post above to:
Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all types of (low flying) drones, not just optical drones.

Cheap home grown anti-drone DYI system.

https://youtu.be/lG-9r9nmq_0.

Any quad .50 cal system still available?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Cheap home grown anti-drone DYI system.

https://youtu.be/lG-9r9nmq_0.

Any quad .50 cal system still available?

bt

Doubt it, the WW2 system?
Malta once had some quad 14.5mm guns.

Looks like they still have plenty, Bulgaria another possibility, Latvia only have two. Some would be double not quads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZPU

bikerthai wrote:

Cheap home grown anti-drone DYI system.

https://youtu.be/lG-9r9nmq_0.

Any quad .50 cal system still available?

bt

Cheap bullets fired fire from a gun that is either mounted or carried in a vehicle. No fancy radar or IR tracking is required just a networked GPS tablet where another system detects the actual drones.

I am certain this vehicle doesn't randomly drive around all day with soldiers looking up at the sky trying to find drones. The drones GPS location will be sent to a soldier in the vehicle as I explained earlier. The size of the bullet isn't that important they can just drive 100m closer to the drone before opening fire.

In the case of the USA they will have AESA radars in the air feeding the drone locations into the network. Cheap vehicles on the ground driving around with networked GPS tablets can kill the drone. A tank with a 50 cal gun could kill the drone. A sniper on a rooftop with a networked tablet can kill the drone. A blackhawk that happened to be passing through can kill the drone. Multiple options all cheaper than a stinger missile or dedicated system.

Basically all of this I said earlier.

The important questions should be.

What platform is Ukraine using to detect the drones?

Are they using ground based radar located far away?

Are they passing the drone locations through radio network?

Do they have a network of scouts or observers visually detecting the drones?

Do they have a passive system that detects the drones transmissions?

Obviously the USA would have F-35 doing 90+% of the drone detection work, but what is Ukraine using?

RJMAZ wrote:

Obviously the USA would have F-35 doing 90+% of the drone detection work, but what is Ukraine using?

So you're back to using an 85 million dollar F-35 to do the job of a 2 million dollar radar set? I thought you gave up on that. (actually you would need at least six 85 million dollar F-35s to cover the same area that a 2 million dollar radar could monitor 24 hours a day).

Btw
Have you ever gone pheasant hunting? It's hard enough to hit a lowly bird at 100' with a shotgun, but you expect someone to bag a drone that may be an angular quarter mile away with bullets? I believe you are talking about things that you have no experience with.

The US switched to radar directed gun laying for anti-aircraft purposes about 70 years ago; as I pointed out before, US Army doctrine has its infantrymen shooting straight up in the air without aiming in case of low level air attack, they chose this method because hitting something up in the sky is so difficult that it's just a matter of chance anyway.

Meanwhile you give zero consideration to the obvious solution to this problem: radar directed gun laying which every nation with a military already is using. The Israelis have it down to the point where they can take down artillery shells with their Iron Dome system. Shooting at things in the air without radar direction is an act of desperation.

Vintage wrote:

So you're back to using an 85 million dollar F-35 to do the job of a 2 million dollar radar set?

In any US conflict the F-35s are already in the air performing other missions. So detecting the drones cost nothing.

Vintage wrote:

but you expect someone to bag a drone that may be an angular quarter mile away with bullets? I believe you are talking about things that you have no experience with.

Did you not watch the video bikerthai posted?

https://youtu.be/lG-9r9nmq_0

Ukraine IS using bullets to shoot down drones. The soldier in the video even said they have been shooting down Shahed Iranian drones with that particular 50 cal gun system for the last month and a half.

So now we have proof that hand aimed guns are shooting down drones just like I have been saying in here for the last few weeks. So that is either a fluke or maybe I have over 10 years military experience.

RJMAZ wrote:

been shooting down Shahed Iranian drones with that particular 50 cal gun system for the last month and a half.

Don't think those are 50 cal. Looks more like 30 cal to me.

But point is until battle field lasers are deployed these would be the least expensive for Ukaine. They have to work with what they have.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... to-ukraine

https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/ada/Avenger.html

The machine gun is item 11 in the diagram.

bt

Vintage wrote:

mats01776 wrote:

Is there a need to actually shoot down a drone?
In the case of a suicide drone with an internal navigation system, sure.
But for a scout/target aquisition/remotely-piloted attack drone, neutralizing its optical sensor will render it useless.
If you can find the drone, firing a directed beam of moderate power laser should be able to permanently damage its CCD optical sensors.

Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all (low flying) drones, not just optical drones. Lasers may come into being sometime in the far off future, but for now there is a reason the demos of experiments are from naval ships, ships can satisfy the huge power needs of lasers.

Not deployable now but not far off future either;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... in-the-uk/

GDB wrote:

Vintage wrote:

mats01776 wrote:

Is there a need to actually shoot down a drone?
In the case of a suicide drone with an internal navigation system, sure.
But for a scout/target aquisition/remotely-piloted attack drone, neutralizing its optical sensor will render it useless.
If you can find the drone, firing a directed beam of moderate power laser should be able to permanently damage its CCD optical sensors.

Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all (low flying) drones, not just optical drones. Lasers may come into being sometime in the far off future, but for now there is a reason the demos of experiments are from naval ships, ships can satisfy the huge power needs of lasers.

Not deployable now but not far off future either;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... in-the-uk/

Note that they don't show the 12,000 volt power line that it is probably hooked up to. This is the first 'static' test, lasers are a long way from being useful for this purpose.

RJMAZ wrote:

Vintage wrote:

So you're back to using an 85 million dollar F-35 to do the job of a 2 million dollar radar set?

In any US conflict the F-35s are already in the air performing other missions. So detecting the drones cost nothing.

As you say, F-35s have other, much more important things to be doing. The idea that they would be flying over the front lines looking for something to do is just plain silly. And the fact that things beyond the front lines need protection too remains ignored by you.

As for the Ukrainians with their twin 50, they weren't exactly crowing about their success rate. And they can achieve nothing at night or in anything but clear weather.

Vintage wrote:

GDB wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Whatever system is developed should be able to take out all (low flying) drones, not just optical drones. Lasers may come into being sometime in the far off future, but for now there is a reason the demos of experiments are from naval ships, ships can satisfy the huge power needs of lasers.

Not deployable now but not far off future either;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... in-the-uk/

Note that they don't show the 12,000 volt power line that it is probably hooked up to. This is the first 'static' test, lasers are a long way from being useful for this purpose.

'Probably', well I don't know the details either, yes likely warships first, not perhaps when scaled down for the threats we are discussing far off either.
I remember some controversy over lasers fitted to RN warships in the Persian Gulf reportedly using them to dazzle aircraft being threatening without escalating to a shooting down, in the late 1980's!
Though they had been around before then;
https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1

https://optics.org/news/12/9/26

GDB wrote:

'Probably', well I don't know the details either, yes likely warships first, not perhaps when scaled down for the threats we are discussing far off either.

They are looking. . .

https://hackaday.com/2022/08/30/militar ... erational/

https://www.popsci.com/technology/firin ... er-weapon/

If you think about the amount of energy an M-1 Abrams turbine engine can put out, you don't need a large engine to power a 60 KW laser.

bt

Somebody needs to start a future lasers thread, it could be a contender for being the longest running thread on A.net (except for the when is the 757 going to be resurrected). For now, the fact is that lasers are a long way from being useful for destroying physical objects in wartime.

The laser conversation strikes me as a strawman to prevent an actual discussion of how future anti-drone systems are going to develop. IMO, if anyone wants to argue that anti-drone systems aren't really needed, they should attempt to argue that point head on, instead of deflecting the conversation.

Vintage wrote:

The laser conversation strikes me as a strawman to prevent an actual discussion of how future anti-drone systems are going to develop.

Why do you expect laser based weapons to remain experimental? Multiple independent projects have demonstrated feasability over the past few years, and they're ideal for short-range defense against reasonably slow and fragile targets.

mxaxai wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The laser conversation strikes me as a strawman to prevent an actual discussion of how future anti-drone systems are going to develop.

Why do you expect laser based weapons to remain experimental? Multiple independent projects have demonstrated feasability over the past few years, and they're ideal for short-range defense against reasonably slow and fragile targets.

The undeniable fact is that lasers are experimental. They do not exist in a form that is usable in combat.

As for "Multiple independent projects have demonstrated": multiple companies that are running research projects are seeking more funding, so they issue press release after press release claiming that a workable system is just around the corner. When they deliver the goods, we'll talk; until then lasers are research projects, not weapons.

Meanwhile, the need for anti-drone systems is very real.

Edit:
I will add that the laser fans apparently need a discussion forum to actually discuss their idea instead of just regurgitating that they are almost ready. Who are the companies doing this research, do they have different approaches? What is the problem limiting development; is it that they can't cool the output transistor(s)? Is it that they can't get powerful transistors to operate on the needed frequency band? Is the current lens technology up to the job? What's going on in these research labs?

Vintage wrote:

The undeniable fact is that lasers are experimental. They do not exist in a form that is usable in combat.

Neither do any other dedicated anti-UAV weapons. Nothing at the prototype stage today will see frontline use within the next 3-5 years.

The main challenges are similar for all demonstrators, lasers or not: Build production lines and develop mass-production methods for new components, increase reliability, lifetime of wear parts, and cope with rough handling in the field. They also need to convince someone to pay for all the effort from prototype to serial production.

Considering that lasers have now been demonstrated on ships and on land vehicles, both large and small variants, against a multitude of targets, there doesn't seem to be any fundamental issue that prevents anti-UAV-lasers.
You could compare military aviation programs, where, for example, the YF-22 proved that what would later become the F-22 was feasible. It was still a little rough around the edges and needed improvement but the basic concept of a stealth fighter was demonstrated. There were only 7 years between the first flights of the YF-22 and F-22, respectively, and I'd argue that an aircraft is a far more complex system than a laser turret.

mxaxai wrote:

Nothing at the prototype stage today will see frontline use within the next 3-5 years.

That's not true. Radar gunlaying has been in use since the early 1950s. Current AESA radar arrays are off the shelf items as are the computers and the ASEA to computer interface. The target tracking and predictive targeting software exists already. Guns and servo systems to aim them are practically off the shelf items and in some cases are off the shelf items. Motor generators to power them are available at Home Depot.

Beside the fact that such things are already available right now, newer designs that are scaled down versions of currently existing gear, could become available in a few months. My idea of developing a cartridge designed for maximum range at the expense of hitting power has probably already investigated fully by the DOD or some munitions company or both. There's nothing there to hinder development if, anyone wanted to pursue that route. There's nothing difficult about diddling with loads and bullets, in August of 1944, US artillerymen in the field reduced the charge in some of their shells, took out the explosive, put morphine it its place and fired the morphine to an isolated unit at Mortain.

Vintage wrote:

That's not true. Radar gunlaying has been in use since the early 1950s. Current AESA radar arrays are off the shelf items as are the computers and the ASEA to computer interface. The target tracking and predictive targeting software exists already. Guns and servo systems to aim them are practically off the shelf items and in some cases are off the shelf items. Motor generators to power them are available at Home Depot.

You vastly underestimate the effort required to go from a bunch of (more or less well refined) components to a complete producable and reliable system. 90% of engineers would be out of work if production line setup and system interfaces were so trivial.

The system you're envisioning would be a perfect fit for r/shittytechnicals. It may get the job done (sometimes...) but is certainly not what any professional army wants to operate.

mxaxai wrote:

You vastly underestimate the effort required to go from a bunch of (more or less well refined) components to a complete producable and reliable system. 90% of engineers would be out of work if production line setup and system interfaces were so trivial.

The system you're envisioning would be a perfect fit for r/shittytechnicals. It may get the job done (sometimes...) but is certainly not what any professional army wants to operate.

You failed to state that you were offering opinion, not fact.

IMO, you overestimate the development time needed. I believe you're right about a Boeing or Raytheon product developed for the DOD in the normal course of events, but this has become a wartime need; 21st century industry whips up things of this complexity on the fly regularly. Also, once again in this thread I will point out that this topic is not limited to the US military industrial complex.

I don't get the anger, of course any laser in use, maybe one adapted from warships, which as I linked, are not new but also never considered a viable weapon system like a gun or missile based one, had utility as they were actually operationally deployed, for their intended role at the time.
Decades later, my question only is, could current versions of these have an ability not to destroy but rather disrupt, the small Iranian drones currently being used to attack Ukraine, nothing more than that, which should be self evident.
I certainly don't see anything very near term for targets other than that, not aircraft, cruise missiles etc, it was just a question, about the subject title, small unmanned strike vehicles.

Of course, for all that, it's far more likely, far more practical, to increase their AD, a few Avengers have been sent, maybe more and soon.
Though retired last year, the final operational standard Rapier SAM's operated by the UK, though an additional AD system, if they could sent quickly, though the UK did recently announce the delivery of a further 1000 AD missiles, almost certainly a mix of Starstreak and Martlet, though if some Rapier batteries are pictured in country, then we will know.
I only know 1000 more missiles were sent.

GDB wrote:

I don't get the anger, of course any laser in use, maybe one adapted from warships, which as I linked, are not new but also never considered a viable weapon system like a gun or missile based one, had utility as they were actually operationally deployed, for their intended role at the time.

We only need to consider devices which are considered viable weapons systems. If you know of a laser system, current or out of the past, that is a viable weapons system, please provide a link to it. Or else please stop alluding to something that doesn't exist.

GDB wrote:

Decades later, my question only is, could current versions of these have an ability not to destroy but rather disrupt, the small Iranian drones currently being used to attack Ukraine, nothing more than that, which should be self evident.

NO, what you are suggesting is to provide a radar system system complete with gunlaying equipment (and software) to aim a laser that can only be (at best) an annoyance to some drones.

GDB wrote:

I certainly don't see anything very near term for targets other than that, not aircraft, cruise missiles etc, it was just a question, about the subject title, small unmanned strike vehicles.

This thread is only about "slow unmanned strike vehicles", although the need to take down reconnaissance drones seems to me to be the same thing.

GDB wrote:

Of course, for all that, it's far more likely, far more practical, to increase their AD, a few Avengers have been sent, maybe more and soon.

Slow unmanned strike vehicles have an attribute that makes them unsuitable targets for normal AD systems: they fly very low. This means that the radar horizon for these drones is always going to be short: 15 miles or less. Thus if you want to use conventional AD defense you would need a lot of them and conventional AD systems are expensive in terms of money and manpower; they just aren't what is needed for the job.

GDB wrote:

Though retired last year, the final operational standard Rapier SAM's operated by the UK, though an additional AD system, if they could sent quickly, though the UK did recently announce the delivery of a further 1000 AD missiles, almost certainly a mix of Starstreak and Martlet, though if some Rapier batteries are pictured in country, then we will know. I only know 1000 more missiles were sent.

Sure, if there's nothing else available and these are sitting in storage, they should be offered to Ukraine, because there is such a desperate current need for something (even the twin 50s seen above), but that does not address the fact that a counterdrone system is needed.

Unless someone wants to argue that a dedicated counterdrone system is not really needed by anybody.

Vintage wrote:

We only need to consider devices which are considered viable weapons systems. If you know of a laser system, current or out of the past, that is a viable weapons system, please provide a link to it. Or else please stop alluding to something that doesn't exist.

Since countermeasures apparently don't count as "viable weapons systems," even in the context of anti-drone or anti-missile equipment such as LAIRCM, how about the PY131A? Blinding a pilot and causing that aircraft to not be able to accomplish its mission surely counts as a viable weapons system.

Vintage wrote:

NO, what you are suggesting is to provide a radar system system complete with gunlaying equipment (and software) to aim a laser that can only be (at best) an annoyance to some drones.

Can you provide a link? We like to deal with facts, here. Not only opinions.

An Indian company has come up with a drone netting system. At 2kg in weight it could be installed on 'hunter drones'. Range: 300m plus. Could this netting idea provide an answer to the question of how to defend against offensive drones?

https://idrw.org/indian-start-up-workin ... ore-298905

A friendly reminder to calm done and when discussion to keep your personal emotions out, thanks.

Vintage wrote:

GDB wrote:

I don't get the anger, of course any laser in use, maybe one adapted from warships, which as I linked, are not new but also never considered a viable weapon system like a gun or missile based one, had utility as they were actually operationally deployed, for their intended role at the time.

We only need to consider devices which are considered viable weapons systems. If you know of a laser system, current or out of the past, that is a viable weapons system, please provide a link to it. Or else please stop alluding to something that doesn't exist.

GDB wrote:

Decades later, my question only is, could current versions of these have an ability not to destroy but rather disrupt, the small Iranian drones currently being used to attack Ukraine, nothing more than that, which should be self evident.

NO, what you are suggesting is to provide a radar system system complete with gunlaying equipment (and software) to aim a laser that can only be (at best) an annoyance to some drones.

GDB wrote:

I certainly don't see anything very near term for targets other than that, not aircraft, cruise missiles etc, it was just a question, about the subject title, small unmanned strike vehicles.

This thread is only about "slow unmanned strike vehicles", although the need to take down reconnaissance drones seems to me to be the same thing.

GDB wrote:

Of course, for all that, it's far more likely, far more practical, to increase their AD, a few Avengers have been sent, maybe more and soon.

Slow unmanned strike vehicles have an attribute that makes them unsuitable targets for normal AD systems: they fly very low. This means that the radar horizon for these drones is always going to be short: 15 miles or less. Thus if you want to use conventional AD defense you would need a lot of them and conventional AD systems are expensive in terms of money and manpower; they just aren't what is needed for the job.

GDB wrote:

Though retired last year, the final operational standard Rapier SAM's operated by the UK, though an additional AD system, if they could sent quickly, though the UK did recently announce the delivery of a further 1000 AD missiles, almost certainly a mix of Starstreak and Martlet, though if some Rapier batteries are pictured in country, then we will know. I only know 1000 more missiles were sent.

Sure, if there's nothing else available and these are sitting in storage, they should be offered to Ukraine, because there is such a desperate current need for something (even the twin 50s seen above), but that does not address the fact that a counterdrone system is needed.

Unless someone wants to argue that a dedicated counterdrone system is not really needed by anybody.

OK, to answer each one, not claiming to have inside knowledge of some system, I do note however, that several nations are and have been putting money into researching systems and are at various stages of testing, maybe they know something? Never claimed for a moment that anything deployable now, even made a point of that when I linked the Dragonfire test.
I note the title of the thread, where does it say ‘immediately’? It’s part of the discussion yes but so is going forward, why is this such an issue for you?
Not arguing that a counterdrone system is not needed, If there is one nation that actually does have one, it’s the one that will not help Ukraine, despite the fact that tax $ would have helped to fund it’s development.

I mentioned further up potentially retired German twin 20mm, they could be linked to radars, as they were when in service.
Gephards have been engaging them, however naturally they are more needed nearer the battlefield, does not stop them going after inbound drones they can detect.
A modern version, the single Millennium Gun, is in limited German service so not many of them, however ideal for defending more static targets.
Apparently the old Shilka’s have alignment issues making them less accurate, still 4 x 23mm cannon?

Given the reported 80% kill rate of the most recent attacks, granted not all were these small drones, which has improved from the first waves, I suspect the answer lies not so much with hardware, for the here and now in Ukraine, but reporting and interlinking radar and visual sightings.
In other words, what really did for the Luftwaffe over the UK in 1940, what also greatly reduced the real predecessors of these drones once the AD had a handle on them, the V-1’s.

GDB wrote:

I don't get the anger

several nations are and have been putting money into researching systems and are at various stages of testing, maybe they know something? Never claimed for a moment that anything deployable now

There is no anger on my part, I was going to just ignore that remark but now it seems that I have to make it clear that I am not 'angry'; however I am exasperated over the continued, repeated and ongoing attempts to change the subject of this thread from the very real need to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles to a discussion of some future star wars type of technology. The need to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles has been brought to the world's attention by events in Ukraine, the need is real and the need is current, as in now, or as is sometime stated, we need this yesterday. You post in the Non-AV Ukraine thread, so I know you are aware of this.

At the risk of repeating myself repeatedly I will again point out that there is no such thing as a military capable laser system capable of destroying solid objects; this doesn't exist.

Of course a laser system would be the perfect solution, anyone that has ever watched Buck Rogers can see that. Someday we may see such a thing, maybe not. But there is no such thing now, so discussing laser weapons just detracts or deflects from a real discussion of how to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles.

GDB wrote:

Gephards have been engaging them, however naturally they are more needed nearer the battlefield, does not stop them going after inbound drones they can detect.
A modern version, the single Millennium Gun, is in limited German service so not many of them, however ideal for defending more static targets.
Apparently the old Shilka’s have alignment issues making them less accurate, still 4 x 23mm cannon?

Gephard is based on the hull of the Leopard 1 tank and uses twin 35mm guns; that can certainly do the job, but I don't think they are going to go back into production and if they do, I don't think anybody would buy them, they are overkill for this job. But this is at least on topic.

GDB wrote:

Given the reported 80% kill rate of the most recent attacks, granted not all were these small drones, which has improved from the first waves, I suspect the answer lies not so much with hardware, for the here and now in Ukraine, but reporting and interlinking radar and visual sightings. In other words, what really did for the Luftwaffe over the UK in 1940, what also greatly reduced the real predecessors of these drones once the AD had a handle on them, the V-1’s.

I suggest taking that 80% kill rate with a large dose of salt. Interlinking radars doesn't offer much help IMO, because these drones fly so low, the radar horizon will be about 15 miles max for most of them, so the concept of a 'big' search radar handing off targets won't work. Whoever 'sees' the drone will have to be the one to kill it. But maybe you know something along these lines that I don't so please add to this discussion if you have more.

Vintage wrote:

GDB wrote:

I don't get the anger

several nations are and have been putting money into researching systems and are at various stages of testing, maybe they know something? Never claimed for a moment that anything deployable now

There is no anger on my part, I was going to just ignore that remark but now it seems that I have to make it clear that I am not 'angry'; however I am exasperated over the continued, repeated and ongoing attempts to change the subject of this thread from the very real need to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles to a discussion of some future star wars type of technology. The need to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles has been brought to the world's attention by events in Ukraine, the need is real and the need is current, as in now, or as is sometime stated, we need this yesterday. You post in the Non-AV Ukraine thread, so I know you are aware of this.

At the risk of repeating myself repeatedly I will again point out that there is no such thing as a military capable laser system capable of destroying solid objects; this doesn't exist.

Of course a laser system would be the perfect solution, anyone that has ever watched Buck Rogers can see that. Someday we may see such a thing, maybe not. But there is no such thing now, so discussing laser weapons just detracts or deflects from a real discussion of how to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles.

GDB wrote:

Gephards have been engaging them, however naturally they are more needed nearer the battlefield, does not stop them going after inbound drones they can detect.
A modern version, the single Millennium Gun, is in limited German service so not many of them, however ideal for defending more static targets.
Apparently the old Shilka’s have alignment issues making them less accurate, still 4 x 23mm cannon?

Gephard is based on the hull of the Leopard 1 tank and uses twin 35mm guns; that can certainly do the job, but I don't think they are going to go back into production and if they do, I don't think anybody would buy them, they are overkill for this job. But this is at least on topic.

GDB wrote:

Given the reported 80% kill rate of the most recent attacks, granted not all were these small drones, which has improved from the first waves, I suspect the answer lies not so much with hardware, for the here and now in Ukraine, but reporting and interlinking radar and visual sightings. In other words, what really did for the Luftwaffe over the UK in 1940, what also greatly reduced the real predecessors of these drones once the AD had a handle on them, the V-1’s.

I suggest taking that 80% kill rate with a large dose of salt. Interlinking radars doesn't offer much help IMO, because these drones fly so low, the radar horizon will be about 15 miles max for most of them, so the concept of a 'big' search radar handing off targets won't work. Whoever 'sees' the drone will have to be the one to kill it. But maybe you know something along these lines that I don't so please add to this discussion if you have more.

I am perfectly aware the Gerphard is an aging system, long out of production, that the ones supplied to Ukraine themselves were pulled out of long term storage as the German Army has not used them for a decade. Much discussed before, in particular in the Ukraine thread in Non Av.
Presumably they were the ones in best condition to send.

It is not just Ukraine making the claims of shootdowns, there is a general consensus that most are not getting through, from the configuration of them, their inherent vulnerability, is why they, along with other systems such as Kalibur and repurposed S300’s are being used, just to swamp the defenses.
The simple drones making up most of the numbers and the shoot downs.

Question, while these are not the first use of these sort of systems, have they ever been used in such numbers, in concert with these other systems?
I strongly suspect the answer is no.

As for the analogy with the BoB and the V-1’s not being applicable, is this a cyber version of the Royal Observer Corps?
I’m not the first to think so;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... tacks-eppo

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 859648.cms

I do believe that countries that are in fear to be bombed and extincted, have a different motivation to succeed as quickly as possible with defensive weapons, than others who just feel a nice to have or commercial business case... .

Alfons wrote:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-successfully-tests-new-laser-missile-defense-system-iron-beam/articleshow/90859648.cms

I do believe that countries that are in fear to be bombed and extincted, have a different motivation to succeed as quickly as possible with defensive weapons, than others who just feel a nice to have or commercial business case... .

That's just more laser hype.

In October 2022 Rafael said it expects to take "two to three years" to deploy the 100+kw weapon operationally.https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/iro ... 2-3-years/

Yea right. 2 to 3 years.

Let me know when they deliver the goods.

BTW
I'll say it again, you guys need your own laser rumors thread.
This stuff doesn't belong here.