RJMAZ wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The US is going to need something to fend off drones at the Company and Battalion level as well as for comm/cmd locations, ammo dumps etc.

What do you think it will be?

The US will have hundreds of radars and cameras over the combat zone. The launch site of any drone will get taken out within seconds. These small drones are extremely short range so the US will probably be watching them unpack the drone before it even takes off.

Israel has all manner of radar's, camera's, fence, eyes, people infiltration units, arty, surface to surface missiles, helicopters (including Apache's), fast jets and naval ships and they cannot prevent the launch of cheap drones and home made rockets from the Gaza strip. Indeed Iron Dome is the result of putting more effort into shooting down versus prevention and punishing at the launch site. Now imagine the next conflict with Hezbollah, all those long range rockets they now fear which can reach Tel Aviv so they hit sites in Syria I believe will be accompanied with a good sprinkling of Iranian drones. Based on what we are seeing in Ukraine, missile intercepts of drones will quickly deplete supplies leaving you open to other more deadly missiles. A cheap means has to be found, even if the radar it uses is the Mark IV eyeball tied to a Bofors cannon.

par13del wrote:

Israel has all manner of radar's, camera's, fence, eyes, people infiltration units, arty, surface to surface missiles, helicopters (including Apache's), fast jets and naval ships and they cannot prevent the launch of cheap drones and home made rockets from the Gaza strip.

Moscow and New York aren't joined together with a fence separating the two halves. Where the enemy can launch a drone from a crowd and 1 minute later it is on the other side of the fence. So Israel is irrelevant to the discussion as it won't apply with anywhere in Europe or Asia.

The best example would be North and South Korea. No drone is getting across. No need for any dedicated drone defense system.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Israel has all manner of radar's, camera's, fence, eyes, people infiltration units, arty, surface to surface missiles, helicopters (including Apache's), fast jets and naval ships and they cannot prevent the launch of cheap drones and home made rockets from the Gaza strip.

Moscow and New York aren't joined together with a fence separating the two halves. Where the enemy can launch a drone from a crowd and 1 minute later it is on the other side of the fence. So Israel is irrelevant to the discussion as it won't apply with anywhere in Europe or Asia.

The best example would be North and South Korea. No drone is getting across. No need for any dedicated drone defense system.

My point is that Israel can see the inbound drones much quicker than any conflict in Europe with all the cameras and sensors the USA will have because their enemy is in a small restricted area, fenced in and under constant surveillance, yet they still cannot prevent launches so they commenced developing tech to shoot down the drones.
Cheap drones, probably travelling less than 200mph but rocket science is required to knock them down, my question would be, do we really want to knock them down or use them as an excuse to spend more money. I suspect within the next few weeks we will see the low tech solutions that Ukraine has been deploying as its not as if the drones are getting any smarter.
As for Korea, not sure I have seen anything about the North sending drone swarms into the south, but as they say, google is your friend so will go checking.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Israel has all manner of radar's, camera's, fence, eyes, people infiltration units, arty, surface to surface missiles, helicopters (including Apache's), fast jets and naval ships and they cannot prevent the launch of cheap drones and home made rockets from the Gaza strip.

Moscow and New York aren't joined together with a fence separating the two halves. Where the enemy can launch a drone from a crowd and 1 minute later it is on the other side of the fence. So Israel is irrelevant to the discussion as it won't apply with anywhere in Europe or Asia.

The best example would be North and South Korea. No drone is getting across. No need for any dedicated drone defense system.

There, you've solved the drone problem for good. Now explain that to the Ukrainians and the Saudis and the Tigray military, also South Korea, and to India, I'm sure they will be happy to know that they don't have to be worried about Chinese or Pakistani drones. You might want to drop a note to the US Dept of homeland security too.

A long time ago, so I have to assume things have gotten better unless they have been spending all resources on ballistic protection. Some appear to be jet powered so much faster and higher flying than the Iranian drones, but the cheaper stuff still gets across albeit for spy missions.
https://thediplomat.com/2015/09/north-k ... s-the-dmz/
https://www.38north.org/2016/01/jbermudez011916/
https://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-sp ... uth-628045
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35299492

par13del wrote:

My point is that Israel can see the inbound drones much quicker than any conflict in Europe

But the drones flight time in Israel is much lower than any conflict in Europe.

Israel might detect a drone in 10 seconds but it might only be 20 seconds until the drone kills an Israeli citizen. There are no systems that can defend in that 10 second window.

The US military in Europe might detect the drone in 30 seconds yet they might have 2 minute until the drone reaches anything of value. The US then has 90 seconds or 9 times as much time to kill the drone. Completely different systems can now be used. 90 seconds is enough for every ground soldier in the area to be informed.

par13del wrote:

yet they still cannot prevent launches so they commenced developing tech to shoot down the drones.

The drones in Gaza are being launched from built up civilian areas. Israel can't just launch a HIMARS strike on the drone launch site. In Ukraine the drones are flying over empty fields. The drones are being launched from these empty fields. The US could just carpet bomb the drone launch site without worrying by civilians.

par13del wrote:

As for Korea, not sure I have seen anything about the North sending drone swarms into the south, but as they say, google is your friend so will go checking.

The point is North Korea wouldn't even try. The answer is so obvious. It would be like North Korea sending Navy ships to fire cannons at the Californian coast. It would take a cheap drone 10 minites to just cross the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Launching a drone right at the NK border the south would be watching the drone being unpacked.

RJMAZ wrote:

But the drones flight time in Israel is much lower than any conflict in Europe.

Why would it be any lower than across any European border? Israel has an easy task, everyone except Israel has much longer borders to defend, the Gaza border is only 36 miles total.

RJMAZ wrote:

Israel might detect a drone in 10 seconds but it might only be 20 seconds until the drone kills an Israeli citizen.

That's the same everywhere, however countries with long borders can see a drone sneak across a border and travel 250 miles over unprotected territory before reaching its target.

RJMAZ wrote:

The US military in Europe might detect the drone in 30 seconds yet they might have 2 minute until the drone reaches anything of value. The US then has 90 seconds or 9 times as much time to kill the drone. Completely different systems can now be used. 90 seconds is enough for every ground soldier in the area to be informed.

That logic falls on its face. Troops will always be on and near a front line; borders always have cities on them, and once across a border it's free flying in most cases. You completely misunderstand the threat.

RJMAZ wrote:

The drones in Gaza are being launched from built up civilian areas. Israel can't just launch a HIMARS strike on the drone launch site. In Ukraine the drones are flying over empty fields. The drones are being launched from these empty fields. The US could just carpet bomb the drone launch site without worrying by civilians.

Drones can be launched from anywhere, including many miles from a border.

RJMAZ wrote:

The point is North Korea wouldn't even try.

They already did.

Vintage wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

But the drones flight time in Israel is much lower than any conflict in Europe.

Why would it be any lower than across any European border? Israel has an easy task, everyone except Israel has much longer borders to defend, the Gaza border is only 36 miles total.

You just answered your own question.

The flight time is lower in Israel because they only have 36 miles of border. The targets inside Israel are much closer to the border.

The borders in Europe are longer. The targets are further from the border. The drones must fly for longer in Europe. The enemy must also travel further before launching a drone in Europe.

The enemy will not be able to launch their drone from one of their cities to attack another city on the other side of the border. Europe does not have cities that are split by a border. The enemy will have to launch the drones from rural areas that will be able to get bombed instantly by the US.

Vintage wrote:

That's the same everywhere, however countries with long borders can see a drone sneak across a border and travel 250 miles over unprotected territory before reaching its target.

An enemy drone can't sneak across the border and travel 250 miles. We are talking about fighting against the US military here. The drone will have to fly for an hour or two undetected. That will never happen.

RJMAZ wrote:

Europe does not have cities that are split by a border.

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe?

mxaxai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Europe does not have cities that are split by a border.

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe?

I just went along the entire NATO border using google maps. Not a single city crosses into non NATO territory.

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe?

The NATO border is so clearly defined. Often one side has forest and the other has grass. Other times a river defines the border. If there is a town or city next to the border the other side of the border has nothing.

The Korean DMZ looks very similar from satelite view.

Please name a city that is relevant to the discussion. You dont even have to look at the NATO border but a potential conflict zone. A city pair such as Saint Louis and Basel on the french/swiss border is an example of being irrelevant to the discussion.

Leninskiy Rayon in Belarus and Terespol, Poland is a relevant city pair but it is split by 2km of forest and river.

There is nothing remotely close to the Gaza strip.

RJMAZ wrote:

Drones will fly under nearly all ground to air missile systems. Radar horizon is a big issue as radar is still line of site. If the drone is flying at 50m altitude it will be able to easily penetrate closely spaced ground radar systems.

The only solution is to detect them with a radar from above.

Radars can be elevated by many means, such as balloons or on extending "giraffe necks". Even at just 50ft elevation a radar would have a detection range of more than 25 miles against a target flying at 150ft.

ELBOB wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Drones will fly under nearly all ground to air missile systems. Radar horizon is a big issue as radar is still line of site. If the drone is flying at 50m altitude it will be able to easily penetrate closely spaced ground radar systems.

The only solution is to detect them with a radar from above.

Radars can be elevated by many means, such as balloons or on extending "giraffe necks". Even at just 50ft elevation a radar would have a detection range of more than 25 miles against a target flying at 150ft.

Which already exists, as the Tethered Aerostat Radar System, and the EL/M-2083.

The systems could be run by the US Army Balloon Corps. Going back 160 years since the Balloon Corps was disbanded.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_A ... loon_Corps

Maybe they can add lightweight composite armour so the balloon can handle small arms fire in the combat zone. Possible an adaptive camouflage system to reduce visual detection.

RJMAZ wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Europe does not have cities that are split by a border.

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe?

I just went along the entire NATO border using google maps. Not a single city crosses into non NATO territory.

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe?

The NATO border is so clearly defined. Often one side has forest and the other has grass. Other times a river defines the border. If there is a town or city next to the border the other side of the border has nothing.

The Korean DMZ looks very similar from satelite view.

Please name a city that is relevant to the discussion. You dont even have to look at the NATO border but a potential conflict zone. A city pair such as Saint Louis and Basel on the french/swiss border is an example of being irrelevant to the discussion.

Leninskiy Rayon in Belarus and Terespol, Poland is a relevant city pair but it is split by 2km of forest and river.

There is nothing remotely close to the Gaza strip.

So your thought process is that drones will only be used before conflict starts, and once conflict starts both combatants will remain within their borders? Remind us again where Ukraine borders are, where they would like them to be and how that affects the use of drones as first strike, second strike, battle field spies and general nuisance makers?
Drones are now being used as an integral part of warfare, initially they were used for surveillance and intelligence gathering, then precision strike was added, now we have mass swarms similar to the V1 rockets of WWII.
A number of folks here would like Ukraine to launch drones on Moscow and other Russian cities so that they can feel what the Ukraine civilian population is enduring, will that in an of itself win the war, I don't think so. Thanks to technology, the ability to strike one's enemy far behind the lines is now available on the cheap, no one needs to wish that they have Tomahawks, Khaliber or any such expensive cruise missiles, drones can now be used to accomplish not similar but some aims. Every action on the battlefield has an effect, including terrorizing the civilian population, no war has been won by such tactics but still everyone wants to use them.

RJMAZ wrote:

The flight time is lower in Israel because they only have 36 miles of border. The targets inside Israel are much closer to the border.
The borders in Europe are longer. The targets are further from the border. The drones must fly for longer in Europe. The enemy must also travel further before launching a drone in Europe.

How long a border is says nothing about distance to target. Having a longer border makes defense more difficult for what should be obvious reasons. 36 miles is no great distance.

Drones don't necessarily need to fly longer in Europe, for openers we are speaking of wartime, the front line will then be the 'border'. Europe has many cities that are closer to a border than Gaza is to its 'targets':
Gaza to Ashkelon = 6 mi
Gaza to Ashdod = 17 mi
Gaza to Hebron = 31 mi
Gaza to Tel Aviv = 40 mi
Gaza to Jerusalem = 41mi

I'm not going to make a list of the hundreds of cities that are within 40 miles of a border.

RJMAZ wrote:

An enemy drone can't sneak across the border and travel 250 miles. We are talking about fighting against the US military here. The drone will have to fly for an hour or two undetected. That will never happen.

We are not just talking about fighting against the US military here; but if we were, the story is the same. Targets at low altitude represent a difficult challenge to defend against. On flat ground, with the antenna 10' off the ground, if the drone is at 100' it can be seen by even specialized radar for only 16 miles. If the drone is at 300' it cannot be seen by radar if it is more than 25 miles away.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

If a drone is not within range of a radar/gun system, what can stop it with any expectation of success? Drones are reported to be very hard to see even on a clear day. If a drone is beyond the reach of an anti-drone system it is clear sailing, even against the US military.

par13del wrote:

So your thought process is that drones will only be used before conflict starts, and once conflict starts both combatants will remain within their borders? Remind us again where Ukraine borders are, where they would like them to be

Nope, it's still nothing like Gaza. In Ukraine one side fully controls the city and the border or front line is outside of the city. It is not like Gaza where the border is going through a high density area with innocent civilians on both sides preventing strikes.

In Ukraine the side attacking the city has to launch the drone from outside the city. The drone is then highly exposed as it travels over fields towards the city.

Going the other way a drone launched from the city will have to fly exposed over fields before reaching the enemy.

The drone flight time is much longer than in Gaza.

par13del wrote:

Drones are now being used as an integral part of warfare, initially they were used for surveillance and intelligence gathering, then precision strike was added, now we have mass swarms similar to the V1 rockets of WWII.

I think you have lost track of the original question. Which was:

Vintage wrote:

The US is going to need something to fend off drones at the Company and Battalion level as well as for comm/cmd locations, ammo dumps etc.

What do you think it will be?

The US will not have cheap drones doing precision strike against them or mass swarms like V1 rockets. The US would simply have too many sensors in the air. The enemy drones will never make it near anything important. The US would not need defensive ground based cannon systems as some members suggest. The enemy drones will all be shot down long before they came into range of these defensive ground based cannons.

Ukraine would benefit from defensive ground based cannon systems as they don't have the sensors to detect and kill the drones far away. But such a cannon system doesn't exist because the US doesnt need to develop one. The system would have to be funded and developed by a country that would fight defensive and it fits their doctrine.

RJMAZ wrote:

The US will not have cheap drones doing precision strike against them or mass swarms like V1 rockets.

Why not?

RJMAZ wrote:

The US would simply have too many sensors in the air. The enemy drones will never make it near anything important. The US would not need defensive ground based cannon systems as some members suggest. The enemy drones will all be shot down long before they came into range of these defensive ground based cannons.

Shot down how? An F-35 at 15,000ft may see them (if an F-35 was nearby), but would have to abort whatever they were doing if they want to engage them, the same is true of Apache's (if an Apache happened to be nearby).

RJMAZ wrote:

Ukraine would benefit from defensive ground based cannon systems as they don't have the sensors to detect and kill the drones far away.

Nobody else (including the US) has an ability to detect and kill drones far away.

RJMAZ wrote:

But such a cannon system doesn't exist because the US doesnt need to develop one. The system would have to be funded and developed by a country that would fight defensive and it fits their doctrine.

You have an awfully US centric view of the world. I am reminded of Bob MacNamara's and Dick Cheney's worldviews.

Vintage wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The US will not have cheap drones doing precision strike against them or mass swarms like V1 rockets.

Why not?

The US will control the air like every recent war. Anything that becomes airborne will get killed within seconds.

Vintage wrote:

Shot down how? An F-35 at 15,000ft may see them (if an F-35 was nearby), but would have to abort whatever they were doing if they want to engage them, the same is true of Apache's (if an Apache happened to be nearby).

Probably neither of them. The F-35 will only play the role of detecting these cheap drones. I mention Apache as it is the best platform that can detect and kill drones as a fully independent system which is perfect for a country like Poland. The US would not use Apache as a mini AWAC to detect drones as it has better platforms to do that.

Once the detection part is done the platform that does the killing does not even needs it own radar. Any vehicle with a gun, helicopter with a gun, sniper with a gun or even basic infantry will be able to take out the drone.

The detection part is the critical step otherwise a soldier would not know a drone was transiting close to their position. The enemy drone won't be after that individual soldier it is simply passing through on its way to a target. The soldier on the ground can then take out the drone with their rifle. Information and networking is key.

The Ukraine soldiers can't take out the drones with rifles because they have no information being sent to them that a drone is nearby. If they did manage to shoot down a drone with the rifle it would be sheer luck while the US system would be fully organised and networked.

Vintage wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Ukraine would benefit from defensive ground based cannon systems as they don't have the sensors to detect and kill the drones far away.

Nobody else (including the US) has an ability to detect and kill drones far away.

I take it English is your second language. The drone is detected far away, a US weapon near the drone kills it at close range. The drone is killed far away from any potential ground based gun system.

Vintage wrote:

You have an awfully US centric view of the world. I am reminded of Bob MacNamara's and Dick Cheney's worldviews.

Your Polish government must also have a US centric view considering they just order tens of billions of US military equipment.

Apparently Ukraine didn't get the memo regarding the Apache being the obvious only solution to the drone problem, so instead they are arming their own drones with AAMs. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/sta ... 2405282818

RJMAZ wrote:

I think you have lost track of the original question. Which was:

Vintage wrote:

The US is going to need something to fend off drones at the Company and Battalion level as well as for comm/cmd locations, ammo dumps etc.
What do you think it will be?

No that was in response to a specific assertion of yours. The original question (Title of the thread) is: How to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles?

Spacepope wrote:

Apparently Ukraine didn't get the memo regarding the Apache being the obvious only solution to the drone problem, so instead they are arming their own drones with AAMs. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/sta ... 2405282818

Could these also take out other planes? They could be very useful.

cpd wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Apparently Ukraine didn't get the memo regarding the Apache being the obvious only solution to the drone problem, so instead they are arming their own drones with AAMs. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/sta ... 2405282818

Could these also take out other planes? They could be very useful.

One would think it could be possible. Back after ODS there was a predator that took a pot shot at a Foxbat with a Stinger. It missed but that is sort of a major mismatch.

Spacepope wrote:

Apparently Ukraine didn't get the memo regarding the Apache being the obvious only solution to the drone problem, so instead they are arming their own drones with AAMs. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/sta ... 2405282818

Ukraine is also using Mig-29 as fighters. Apparently they didn't get the memo the F-35 is the best fighter on the market. So this must be proof that the Mig-29 is better than the F-35...

Vintage wrote:

No that was in response to a specific assertion of yours. The original question (Title of the thread) is: How to defend against slow unmanned strike vehicles?

A primative tribe might use a spear. A police officer might use a pistol. A third world country military might use an AK47. A small country in NATO might use Apache. The USA probably wouldn't use Apache because they have so many other options.

RJMAZ wrote:

The USA probably wouldn't use Apache because they have so many other options.

Such as?
You don't get it; drones are hard to spot and hard to shoot down.
Firing $1,000,000 ARAAMs at a $10,000 drone is not a realistic long term option.

You're not even participating in the conversation with your "primitive spear' and Mig-29 comparisons.

Vintage wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The USA probably wouldn't use Apache because they have so many other options.

Such as?
You don't get it; drones are hard to spot and hard to shoot down.
Firing $1,000,000 at a $10,000 drone is not a realistic long term option.

I never said they are firing $1,000,000 at a $10,000 drone. You keep repeating that because you don't get it. You continue to think of systems individually and not as a network.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_chain

F2T2EA
Find
Fix
Track
Target
Engage
Assess

The more advanced the military, the more systems that take part in the kill chain. The most appropriate step would be this.

Target: Select an appropriate weapon or asset to use on the target to create desired effects. Apply command and control capabilities to assess the value of the target and the availability of appropriate weapons to engage it.

I'll repeat again for the third time. In the US military the F-35 will most likely be the first platform to DETECT these cheap drones. It will not do the killing with a million dollar missile. The F-35 might not even display a tiny drone on the pilots moving map, but the F-35 will still pass the drones location through the network.

If every vehicle, car, drone or soldier was placed onto the F-35 pilots moving map the screen would be filled up with low/no threats. The helicopters that receive the F-35 information through the network will choose to display these lower threats. The helicopter would also have their moving map more zoomed in because it is a slower platform. So the threats on the maps become more spread out allowing for more lower threats to then be placed on the map.

At the soldier level they will have a tablet. The soldier doesn't need to know there is an enemy SAM site 200kms away. Their map would be even more zoomed in. So any tiny enemy drone that was flying within 1km would appear. The soldiers can run to the roof and shoot it with a rifle. The bullet from the rifle is actually cheaper than all of the other options. There are hundreds of systems between the individual soldier and the F-35.

assess the value of the target and the availability of appropriate weapons to engage it.

The quicker you want the target killed the more it will cost.
Amraam 15 seconds
Sidewinder 30 seconds
Gun on a helicopter 1 minute
Soldier firing a rifle after driving his Humvee for 5 minute to intercept.

Ukraine or Poland soldiers can't kill drones with a rifle bullet from the roof because they wouldn't know to go to the roof in the first place. Information allows for low end systems to do more. You can't have soldiers sitting on every roof just because there is a one in a million chance they could spot a drone.

That is why the Apache is the best solution for a country like Poland. It allows for most of the kill chain to done entirely on the one aircraft. Will it is an expensive platform it can work well without a network.

RJMAZ wrote:

I'll repeat again for the third time. In the US military the F-35 will most likely be the first platform to DETECT these cheap drones. It will not do the killing with a million dollar missile.

You're behind on current events.
https://eurasiantimes.com/raytheon-deli ... o-us-govt/

The NASAM system uses AMRAAMs at a million dollars apiece.

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-35 might not even display a tiny drone on the pilots moving map, but the F-35 will still pass the drones location through the network.

If every vehicle, car, drone or soldier was placed onto the F-35 pilots moving map the screen would be filled up with low/no threats. The helicopters that receive the F-35 information through the network will choose to display these lower threats. The helicopter would also have their moving map more zoomed in because it is a slower platform. So the threats on the maps become more spread out allowing for more lower threats to then be placed on the map.

At the soldier level they will have a tablet. The soldier doesn't need to know there is an enemy SAM site 200kms away. Their map would be even more zoomed in. So any tiny enemy drone that was flying within 1km would appear. The soldiers can run to the roof and shoot it with a rifle. The bullet from the rifle is actually cheaper than all of the other options.

This is just baseless opinion, you're making this up. To begin with, you are assuming that there will be an F-35 overhead of everywhere 24-7. And you're also assuming that every soldier will have a tablet, and if they have a tablet, they would be watching it because they have nothing else to do. That won't happen.

And for your shoot with bullets theory: pointing up in the sky shooting at a moving target that is likely to be 100 yards away (if it could even be seen) would just be an exercise in futility. That would be nothing like stabilizing a rifle with a bi-pod or such and shooting at a stationary target. (And why would they bother to run to a roof? Do you think that would shorten the distance to the drone?) Standing on a roof shooting at the moon would be a good way to get yourself killed in a combat zone. The last I've heard, US infantry were taught to shoot straight up in the air without aiming in the case of low level air attack. It is assured that they will miss if they waste time aiming, but if a squad or platoon can put a cloud of bullets in the air they might get a hit.

No, rifles aren't a threat to drones, if they were, Ukraine wouldn't have a problem, they wouldn't need all these expensive state of the art SAM systems. If it's going to be the human eyeball doing the targeting, it will have to be something like a Bofors doing the shooting.

BTW
You failed to thank me for the geography lesson on Israel.

Vintage wrote:

You're behind on current events.
https://eurasiantimes.com/raytheon-deli ... o-us-govt/

The NASAM system uses AMRAAMs at a million dollars apiece.

The NASAM system won't be shooting down $10,000 drones.

Vintage wrote:

This is just baseless opinion, you're making this up. To begin with, you are assuming that there will be an F-35 overhead of everywhere 24-7.

There is plenty of information on the F-35 sensor fusion and how the threats get displayed on the moving map. It is not baseless opinion but exactly how these systems display threats and share information.

Network Enabled Ops
The F-35 serves as an information and communications gateway, sharing its operational picture with the ground, sea and air assets.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... ities.html

I said "the F-35 will most likely be the first platform to DETECT these cheap drones". It will not always be the first platform. All other radars in the sky will detect drones it is just the F-35 will be operating closest to the front lines which makes it the most likely platform to detect them.

Vintage wrote:

And you're also assuming that every soldier will have a tablet, and if they have a tablet, they would be watching it because they have nothing else to do. That won't happen.

I'm not watching my phone 24 hours a day but I never seem to miss a phone call. It's called notifications.

Every US squad has or will have a tablet.

Vintage wrote:

No, rifles aren't a threat to drones, if they were, Ukraine wouldn't have a problem, they wouldn't need all these expensive state of the art SAM systems.

I already said rifles in Ukraine won't be shooting down drones. The Ukraine soldiers wouldn't even know a drone is nearby. They have no network and no information at the soldier level.

Pages 12 of this PDF shows demonstrates some of the advanced capabilities of the F-35. Apache has similar networking capability and can receive info from the F-35.

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... ACTIVE.pdf

RJMAZ wrote:

The NASAM system won't be shooting down $10,000 drones.

Yes they will, that's why they're being rushed to Ukraine along with state of the art SAM systems from Britain and other NATO nations right now.

RJMAZ wrote:

There is plenty of information on the F-35 sensor fusion and how the threats get displayed on the moving map. It is not baseless opinion but exactly how these systems display threats and share information.

Sensor fusion is something internal to the F-35, it brings processed data from all the aircraft's sensors to one screen in a coherent manner and presents options. The data link is a separate item. This article on sensor fusion doesn't even mention the data link.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ary-192873

Even within a US theater of operations, F-35s will only be sporadically available on the front line or the frontier, and this thread is not about the US military anyway. Your repeated harping on the F-35 is a strawman in this discussion.

RJMAZ wrote:

I already said rifles in Ukraine won't be shooting down drones.

quote from your last post:

RJMAZ wrote:

At the soldier level they will have a tablet. The soldier doesn't need to know there is an enemy SAM site 200kms away. Their map would be even more zoomed in. So any tiny enemy drone that was flying within 1km would appear. The soldiers can run to the roof and shoot it with a rifle. The bullet from the rifle is actually cheaper than all of the other options.

So you're saying that Americans will shoot drones down with rifles (because they can) but Ukraine won't because they can't?

Vintage wrote:

Sensor fusion is something internal to the F-35, it brings processed data from all the aircraft's sensors to one screen in a coherent manner and presents options. The data link is a separate item. This article on sensor fusion doesn't even mention the data link.

Once the sensor data is processed in the F-35 it is the threat information that is passed through the data link. The F-35 doesn't send the raw sensor data through the data link.

That is why the battle image the F-35 sends through the data link is so valuable.

Vintage wrote:

Even within a US theater of operations, F-35s will only be sporadically available on the front line or the frontier, and this thread is not about the US military anyway. Your repeated harping on the F-35 is a strawman in this discussion.

You asked what the US would use to defeat drones. There will be dozens of overlapping F-35 at all times sitting over the front lines of major war.

Vintage wrote:

So you're saying that Americans will shoot drones down with rifles (because they can) but Ukraine won't because they can't?

Exactly. The US soldier gets a message to go outside and shoot. The Ukraine soldier gets no message so they don't go outside to shoot. Very simple. Neither soldier would have heard or seen the drone using their own eyes or ears. The only difference is the US soldier got a message.

Using the lowest end unit of an individual soldier with rifle is just to create the example. A Humvee with a 50 cal gun with the same tablet can shoot down the drone. A Ukraine Humvee with the same gun would also not be able to shoot the drone as they would be missing the information in the tablet. It would be pure luck if the Ukraine humvee happened to drive on the correct intercept course.

A Predator drone with stinger, a Blackhawk with a door gunner, a sniper on the roof, a MANPAD in a field, so many options. The key is they are all networked when used by the US.

RJMAZ wrote:

Once the sensor data is processed in the F-35 it is the threat information that is passed through the data link. The F-35 doesn't send the raw sensor data through the data link. That is why the battle image the F-35 sends through the data link is so valuable.

That may sound hi-tech to some, but it is word salad, nothing more. It is the kind of boilerplate that is found in sales brochure. Although I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of F-35 systems, I know about radar and I'm sure raw data is transmitted. There's a guy sitting in an AWACS that can see the same PPI image that the F-35 pilot sees, in real time; that's done with raw data.

RJMAZ wrote:

There will be dozens of overlapping F-35 at all times sitting over the front lines of major war.

They won't be off doing air strikes or staying up high so that they maintain energy for evasive maneuver or to give their radar a long range view? What about a minor war? What if the war is happening in more than one place? Are there going to be dozens of them flying over all the places all the time, 24-7?

RJMAZ wrote:

The US soldier gets a message to go outside and shoot. The Ukraine soldier gets no message so they don't go outside to shoot. Very simple. Neither soldier would have heard or seen the drone using their own eyes or ears. The only difference is the US soldier got a message. Using the lowest end unit of an individual soldier with rifle is just to create the example. A Humvee with a 50 cal gun with the same tablet can shoot down the drone. A Ukraine Humvee with the same gun would also not be able to shoot the drone as they would be missing the information in the tablet. It would be pure luck if the Ukraine humvee happened to drive on the correct intercept course.

The 'soldier' either can see it or can't see it, which is it? If they can't see it how are they going to shoot at it? And if they can see it to shoot it, why can't they see it if it's close enough to be hit with small arms?

The actual problem here is range. It is virtually impossible for a rifleman to get a hit on a moving drone more than 150 yards away; a 50 can reach out farther but how is it going to hit a moving target beyond 200 yards? Back in the big war they used quad 50s for this kind of work and that was less than effective. Then there's the case of the drone sitting two miles away equipped with a camera with a telephoto lens calling in artillery corrections. The 5.56 or the 50 operator could do nothing but watch the drone watching them.

RJMAZ wrote:

A Predator drone with stinger, a Blackhawk with a door gunner, a sniper on the roof, a MANPAD in a field, so many options. The key is they are all networked when used by the US.

Now the US is going to have drones and helicopters flying in the same airspace with dozens of F-35s? 24-7? Ukraine has manpads of all kinds but their problem persists. It gets back to luck, having a manpad ready to go at the right time.

What is needed is a dedicated anti-drone system, something that can reach out 6 miles or so, something that watches the flight of the first round to adjust the trajectory of the second round. Something that costs less than 100 million dollars apiece, hopefully less than 6 million apiece. Something that can be deployed to protect a dam, power plant or small city far from a battle zone. Something realistic.

RJMAZ wrote:

Vintage wrote:

You're behind on current events.
https://eurasiantimes.com/raytheon-deli ... o-us-govt/

The NASAM system uses AMRAAMs at a million dollars apiece.

The NASAM system won't be shooting down $10,000 drones.

Are you even following what is going on? It’s not just drones, Kalibur and KH-101 missiles too, which can do a lot more damage even given their dubious targeting.
High numbers of the cheap ones from Iran are being brought down, I have posted footage on the Ukraine thread, the most recent addition, of a fighter bringing one down, not the ideal way, the comments I left pointed that out.
But of course it wasn’t a F-35 doing it, so does not count?

Another likely though larger Iranian drone was shot down late last year by a RAF Typhoon, using a ASRAAM, some questioned the use of a relatively expensive missile on what was still a cheap drone, not bothering to consider the pilot was responding to a request from a US SF base in Syria and it was very time sensitive.

These are real world examples, not constant F-35 CAPs and the right high gear, of the latest type, for every grunt.

We're vastly overthinking this.

We need to keep the costs significantly lower, effectiveness higher, and also keep things more in the realm of possibility.

There are high points with decent visibility all over developed countries: Cell phone towers. They are typically spaced about one to three miles apart in more densely populated areas (closer in cities) and represent locations that would be targets in future conflicts anyway. The top of those towers would be an ideal place for small search radars that are low power and sweep a very short range (under 10km) for small targets. There's already going to be a communications infrastructure there to network their output to regional or national coordination centers.

That represents the tracking part of the equation, how do you intercept the targets reliably and safely?

High value targets will likely have their own organic defenses allocated to them, because they are high value. Given that they are known quantities, they will get their own allocated budgets for local gun systems or missiles. The question becomes, what else do you want to defend? If you want to defend a wider area, you need to think about HOW you are going to do that without being a danger to everything around you. Guns on vehicles are great, but, they have very limited effective range and, even with exploding rounds that self terminate after missing their target, still rain down potentially dangerous shrapnel. Directed energy on that scale is still largely a pipe dream. Big SAM systems are massive overkill.

BAE and the US military are working on something MUCH more economical. They have tested a slightly modified APKWS rocket/missile in an air-to-air intercept of a medium scale drone SUCCESSFULLY. APKWS II, the current production level item, has a range of around 2KM+ when ground fired. It fires from what is effectively a slightly modified Hydra pod. It uses lock after launch laser tracking/aiming. What we need are trucks with small pods with a modest number of cells on them, complete with a laser designator and likely a small radar or IR system to help with low-visibility target acquisition. So, to answer this, there now exists the L3Harris Vampire system. The rounds cost around $27,000 a piece. There are multiple systems already in Ukraine. They are actively using them to intercept drones (supposedly).

There are just going to need to be a LOT more of them. They are CONSIDERABLY cheaper than Apache gun ships, or SuperTucanos, or anything else that currently flies. They system comes on a pallet, so anything that can hold a pallet can hold one. Including half ton pickups, that cost about the cost of a single round or two. The current setup holds 4 rounds, but can be expanded to hold higher capacity launchers.

Doing rough numbers, you could have about 50+ of these for the cost (both purchase and sustainment) of a single apache. When one of these is down for maintenance, you still have at least 49. When the Apache is down for maintenance (and, believe me, it happens A LOT!) you have ZERO defense. Operators for Vampire need to know how to drive a truck and operate a digital tablet. They don't need to know how to fly a helicopter. If they need gas, there are accessible "logistics points"/gas stations all over the place. The Apache has to either return to base, or go to a pre-positioned logistics point setup for servicing a helicopter. They can be dispersed. They are easier to hide. They are easier to repair. They can be collected around mobile high-value targets or dispersed to provide area denial.

Point is, in the short term, this is already a problem that's being addressed...

LightningZ71 wrote:

We're vastly overthinking this.

We need to keep the costs significantly lower, effectiveness higher, and also keep things more in the realm of possibility.

[etc.]

Point is, in the short term, this is already a problem that's being addressed...

Besides, in the context of "Disperse or die, network and live" https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/army-2030-disperse-or-die-network-and-live/ using an asset like an Apache that is of such high value and short supply as a primary anti-UAV weapon, makes even less sense. One of several weapons in the arsenal, of course, but not a primary weapon.

BTW, writing from the US, I'm not especially interested in giving "near peers" any suggestions on productive anti-UAV tactics. This site is constantly monitored and harvested by search bots. Constant human monitoring is not even required, except to occasionally double check potentially interesting posts based on some keyword automated pre-screening.

Vintage wrote:

The 'soldier' either can see it or can't see it, which is it? If they can't see it how are they going to shoot at it? And if they can see it to shoot it, why can't they see it if it's close enough to be hit with small arms?

You still aren't getting it. It is very clear how the tablet provides situation awareness. It's like a fighter flying with or without radar.

I'll break it down even further. The tablet pops up with a notification showing a cheap $10,000 drone nearby. The drone is currently 500m away but the line showing the current direction estimates it will travel 200m to the north of their position. The soldier runs for 20 seconds on an intercept course. The drone then flies past at only 100m and the soldier shoots it with their rifle.

The soldier without the tablet, the drone silently flies past them at 200m. They won't be on full alert as they didn't get a notification to look for a drone. They won't be sitting on the roof in the sun all day looking for drones.

The cheap $10,000 drones are usually flying at only 30-40km/h. A soldier can easily run at 15km/h with a rifle for 30 seconds. You can see how easy it would be to intercept these drones as each soldier can cover a 500m diameter bubble around them with a 30 second running time and 100m rifle range. A vehicle would even do a quicker job at getting into an intercept position. The key is the tablet.

LightningZ71 wrote:

We need to keep the costs significantly lower, effectiveness higher, and also keep things more in the realm of possibility..

Agreed. The round has to be as cheap as possible.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Cell phone towers.

So $100,000 radars on 100,000 cell phone towers. That's a cool $10 billion. I'm not sure how effective a $100,000 radar would even be.

LightningZ71 wrote:

there now exists the L3Harris Vampire system. The rounds cost around $27,000 a piece.

How is that cheap? The APKWS rocket is also bigger and 50% heavier than a stinger missile.

A single 30mm bullet is under $100 and is pinpoint accurate out to 1km.

The only downside with the 30mm cannon is the vehicle needs to be heavier and the stabilised mount has to be integrated with the vehicle. It is the perfect solution but Ukraine doesn't have time.

APKWS is great to shoot down more expensive drones but that is what manpads could already do.

Thanks for posting Lightening, this F-35 nonsense was getting tedious.

LightningZ71 wrote:

We're vastly overthinking this.

The conversation you have just read has been recently devoted to discussions of using the F-35 which is a completely unworkable solution in 99% of cases. The cheapest and most workable solution is a radar directed gun for point defense, I'll explain below.

LightningZ71 wrote:

There are high points with decent visibility all over developed countries: Cell phone towers.

RJMAZ's 10 billion estimate is far too low; area defense is impossible.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Big SAM systems are massive overkill.

Right.

LightningZ71 wrote:

BAE and the US military are working on something MUCH more economical. They have tested a slightly modified APKWS rocket/missile in an air-to-air intercept of a medium scale drone SUCCESSFULLY. APKWS II, the current production level item, has a range of around 2KM+ when ground fired.

2 KM isn't enough range. One important issue is that observation drones can sit four miles or such behind the front lines and spy on the good guys, whatever is developed has to reach out at least that far, I suggest at least six miles, 8 miles is even better. The other reason 2KM isn't enough, is that too many of them would be needed for either front line use or defense of cities if they were so short ranged.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Guns on vehicles are great, but, they have very limited effective range and, even with exploding rounds that self terminate after missing their target, still rain down potentially dangerous shrapnel.

A 40 MM Bofors has a range of six miles and that is shooting a heavy armor piercing round. I believe a smaller round that is designed for long range (as no shell or bullet is currently designed) can be developed to reach out at least that far; the kinetic energy from a 40MM slug isn't needed against drones, so a smaller round makes such a system workable from both a cost and mobility standpoint. Such a gun might be able to be mounted in a big pickup truck, but if it is to be used on front lines it should be armored (A Vampire system should also be armored for front line use).

A gun would have to be radar directed; radars similar to what is needed currently exist. The line of sight range limitation for low flying drones is not problematic: on flat ground, with the antenna 10' off the ground, a drone at 100' it can be seen up to 16 miles. If the drone is at 300' it can be seen by radar if it is within 25 miles.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

16 miles is plenty, and the fact that a radar needs to only see that far will help lower costs. Radar and gun costs will need to be kept low because the computer driven mechanical gun laying apparatus will need to be precision and dependable. If the cost per system can be held to 6 million apiece, I believe this solution would be economically doable.

For a country the size of Ukraine in a large war such as the Russian invasion, I assume that about 200 of these systems would be needed, 100 for the front lines and 100 (unarmored versions) for cities and infrastructure. There will be a large worldwide market for such a system.

Vintage wrote:

The conversation you have just read has been recently devoted to discussions of using the F-35 which is a completely unworkable solution in 99% of cases.

No. I was mentioning airborne AESA radar will be used to detect the drones by any modern military. This is to perform the first few steps of the kill chain. The F-35 was mentioned because it is operated by most modern militaries. It will be the platform that first detects small drones the majority of the time.

The original question was not: "How will a third world country defend against cheap drones?"

Vintage wrote:

A 40 MM Bofors has a range of six miles and that is shooting a heavy armor piercing round. I believe a smaller round that is designed for long range (as no shell or bullet is currently designed) can be developed to reach out at least that far;

That is one magic bullet. A 40mm bofor could never shoot a $10,000 drone at 6 miles. Maybe after thousands of rounds fired one might hit with enough luck. Anyone with gun knowledge would be laughing at your comment.

Vintage wrote:

Such a gun might be able to be mounted in a big pickup truck,

A 40mm Bofor would tip a pickup truck onto it side. Notice how all the vehicles with 40mm cannons weigh 20,000kg and not 2,000kg. Are you only mentioning Bofor because it's not made in the US? Or just googling arguments on the fly?

The reason I have mentioned 30mm multiple times is because it already has long range programmable air burst rounds. Bofors only has some short range airburst grenades.

https://youtu.be/gQCUX34tP-c

Here at the 50 second mark you have it taking out a small off the shelf drone. A 30mm cannon at least has a chance of being able to fit on a reasonable cheap vehicle under 5,000kg.

I would only recommend such a defensive cannon system if a military had no air force and no battle management network. E.g Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia.

A country such as Poland would not need such a last resort defensive system. They would have sensors in the air and a decently networked ground force.

Give it a rest RJ, please give it a rest.

RJMAZ wrote:

No. I was mentioning airborne AESA radar will be used to detect the drones by any modern military.

You have been talking F-35, F-35, F-35 for the last several days, including your misunderstood view of 'sensor fusion'.
It's available above for all to see.

RJMAZ wrote:

That is one magic bullet. A 40mm bofor could never shoot a $10,000 drone at 6 miles. Maybe after thousands of rounds fired one might hit with enough luck.

I used the example of the Bofors purely as a reference to the possible range of guns.

RJMAZ wrote:

Anyone with gun knowledge would be laughing at your comment.

I would love to see an armaments expert join this discussion.
There have been none here so far.

We would also benefit from the views of someone who has experience with radar directed guns. I have the experience of working on the US Army NIKE system which used radar to direct a missile to hit a target that that was up to 100 miles away, and that was a 1959 design. It had a missile tracking radar and a target tracking radar and they had to be aligned with each other every day (we called it orientation) when the two radars coincided at a point up to 100 miles away the system's (mechanical) computer sent a burst command through the MTR. I don't think six miles is asking too much.

This is our current 'gun expert's' analysis:

A soldier can easily run at 15km/h with a rifle for 30 seconds. You can see how easy it would be to intercept these drones as each soldier can cover a 500m diameter bubble around them with a 30 second running time and 100m rifle range.

LOL

RJMAZ wrote:

A 40mm Bofor would tip a pickup truck onto it side.

I have repeatedly stated that I believe a smaller caliber round is preferable, I used the Bofors solely as an example of a gun's range potential. But you're arguing, not debating.

RJMAZ wrote:

A 30mm cannon at least has a chance of being able to fit on a reasonable cheap vehicle under 5,000kg.

A 20 MM might be better, a 50 cal sized projectile might even work, possibly a sabot round in a larger diameter might turn out as the best.

RJMAZ wrote:

They would have sensors in the air and a decently networked ground force.

Your 'sensors in the air' strikes me as using 50 - 100 million dollar aircraft(s) with highly trained pilots to do the job that a few six million dollar systems could handle from beginning to end 24-7 with a few enlisted men running the show.

A couple of points to what I was saying:

1) Not every cell tower in the country will need a radar. So far, the drones that we're talking about have a relatively limited range. In reference to Ukraine, they would need to cover the border area with Russia and Belarus in addition to some edge area. Yes, that's a LOT of towers, but, it's not tens of thousands. In addition, with the volume of radars needing to be purchased, the unit cost will come down some. I have no doubts that the overall project would take well north of $1 Billion because war is most certainly not cheap. 10 Apaches is also a one billion dollar purchase and requires FAR MORE care and feeding over their lives.

2) I realize that more range would be preferable, but, we're talking about preventing attritable drones striking high value targets in country. They HAVE to pass within range of these sorts of defenses. If we're going for longer ranges, then you have a different mission profile and need different sensors and missiles. Things like the Humvee Avenger with it's stinger missiles, or, with funding to finish development, the AI3 with the sidewinder, could provide longer reach at reasonable cost. There is also the active project by NAMMO to produce a Hydra type rocket body with a more powerful, longer duration engine that can extend the reach to up to 10KM, vastly increasing the engagement range of the VAMPIRE system.

3)I agree that gun systems are the traditional solution to knocking things down at close to medium range, and that bullets are considerably cheaper than missiles in most cases. However, the dream of one shot=one kill in ANY rapid fire gun system out there are drug fueled fantasies. You're also talking about using proximity fused bullets in your engagement systems. Have you ANY idea how expensive those rounds are going to be?!?! You're asking for a 30mm system. 30mm rounds are on the order of $150 each for traditional AP or HEI. You want a round that has an integrated radar proximity fuse with an annular blast fragmentation warhead OR a time/spin detonation warhead of the same type that's set at firing. Even a mass produced, simple as possible system for that is going to be well north of $500 a round. You are going to want to fire more than one because your engagement window is in the order of a few seconds, and there's likely nothing between you and a hospital nursery full of premature infants in the NICU next to a fuel storage tank full of nitro-methane that's going to take out a whole city block when someone sneezes next to it. You're probably going to fire a one second burst at several hundred rounds. That's instantly $50,000 headed down range. An unexpected crosswind can make every one of those bullets miss and they have zero way to adjust course on the way to the target and explode harmlessly well beyond the drone's path. In addition, you now have to reload the magazine/belt with a quarter ton of bullets.

No thanks.

I'll take Vampire any day, though, I would encourage them to develop a launcher with more than 4 tubes to be able to better handle swarm attacks. Not a huge magazine, just 7-9 rounds.

In addition to the cost of ammunition, and the likely weight or the whole system requiring a much heavier truck (a rapid fire 30mm cannon will need a substantial mount to absorb the recoil forces without shaking itself apart), those sorts of guns do require a non-trivial amount of maintenance per round fired. That maintenance adds up across a large fleet of vehicles.

Do I think that the Vampire system is ideal in every way? Certainly not! There are clearly limitations and areas that can be improved. However, it is available TODAY, and has an approachable cost. It's something that a country like Ukraine can QUICKLY get out in the field and support in operation.

LightningZ71 wrote:

A couple of points to what I was saying:

I'll take Vampire any day, though, I would encourage them to develop a launcher with more than 4 tubes to be able to better handle swarm attacks. Not a huge magazine, just 7-9 rounds.

In addition to the cost of ammunition, and the likely weight or the whole system requiring a much heavier truck (a rapid fire 30mm cannon will need a substantial mount to absorb the recoil forces without shaking itself apart), those sorts of guns do require a non-trivial amount of maintenance per round fired. That maintenance adds up across a large fleet of vehicles.

Do I think that the Vampire system is ideal in every way? Certainly not! There are clearly limitations and areas that can be improved. However, it is available TODAY, and has an approachable cost. It's something that a country like Ukraine can QUICKLY get out in the field and support in operation.

Ukraine has taken it, numbers and when actually deployment began are not clear the reports I have seen have all been from around the same time and just announcing intention to supply;
https://greydynamics.com/vampires-in-uk ... et-system/

Apologies if already stated, might have got lost in all the 'clutter'.

Understood, thedrive.com had previously reported on a small number having been delivered many months ago and a video surfaced of one in action. My point is that it, or something very much like it, is going to be the near-term best fit for the task at hand. I feel that a better, future, solution will be some sort of directed energy weapon system if only for the ability to respond and touch the target quicker and to have a larger magazine capacity. I suspect that field sustainability of a DEW system may also be easier, though, the power is not free and either fuel or (future, higher efficiency, more durable and easier to transport) solar panels will be needed in abundance.

Here's a system under test, no reason it cannot also be land based too.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 24-frigate

Certainly useful against the smaller drones as supplied by Iran.
Presumably range limited so more close defence.

I think the best (although expensive) way of countering slow UAVs is a loitering F-35 and its fused sensors.

epten wrote:

I think the best (although expensive) way of countering slow UAVs is a loitering F-35 and its fused sensors.

You suggest using an 85 million dollar aircraft with highly trained pilots and immense ground support to do the job that a few six million dollar systems could handle from beginning to end 24-7 with a few enlisted men running the show? How many F-35 sorties will be needed to achieve 24-7 coverage?

And I have to ask, what does the shooting down?
It can't be done by infantry rifles (maybe one out of 10 would be brought down), one out of twenty if the drone kept a 300' altitude..

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

Anti-done laser is close at hand.

The laser system itself is only part of the solution.

What you want is a network centric system that starts with detection.

The US will embark on replacing their fleet of AWACs with E-7. For many years, they were reluctant because they thought satellite radars will take over. But guess what? The E-7 is probably better at detecting small to medium size attack drones than satellite radar.

Not sure if they are looking in to it, but a network of smaller UAV airborne radar platform using similar tech would be useful for the smaller drones. Something with persistent capability, like a small dirigible.

Once the drone is detected, the laser system as linked above can effectively and cheaply engage the target.

Perhaps they can mount the laser on an airborne platform as well. It would more difficult, but the logical next step.

Recall Boeing worked on an airborne anti ballistic missile laser platform or a while. They developed all the systems from detection to engagement on a 747. They pushed the tech as far as they could but there wasn't a laser system powerful enough to do the job, so the project was shelved.

All the intelectual property from that work can readily be down scaled to a smaller platform (business jet size) to be incorporated into an anti drone platform.

You could combine an E-7 with a small tactical laser. But that would be more complex. Have a few detection system and many more laser system for the kill is probably a better way to go.

The AH-64 is a decent solution for now, but it is not ideal.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

What you want is a network centric system that starts with detection.

The US will embark on replacing their fleet of AWACs with E-7. For many years, they were reluctant because they thought satellite radars will take over. But guess what? The E-7 is probably better at detecting small to medium size attack drones than satellite radar.

Not sure if they are looking in to it, but a network of smaller UAV airborne radar platform using similar tech would be useful for the smaller drones.

Sounds good. A small single engine aircraft. AESA radar and networked with a good datalink.

Icing on the cake would be if the aircraft was a bit stealthy to allow the aircraft to get closer to the front line to help that small radar. A pair of AMRAAM missiles for self defense might be asking too much. If only such a platform existed it would capture so many international sales and win every competition it enters.....

RJMAZ wrote:

If only such a platform existed it would capture so many international sales and win every competition it enters.....

Alas, what the US wants is a network of different platforms with different nodes of detection and engagement. They don't want a single point failure to cause a hole in the capability. They have the money do achieve that.

Many foreign user do not have the money for a network centric system and would prefer an all-in-one platform.

The two approach don't quite mesh.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

If only such a platform existed it would capture so many international sales and win every competition it enters.....

Alas, what the US wants is a network of different platforms with different nodes of detection and engagement. They don't want a single point failure to cause a hole in the capability. They have the money do achieve that.

Many foreign user do not have the money for a network centric system and would prefer an all-in-one platform.

The two approach don't quite mesh.

bt

But the F-35 does exist. It does meets all of your requirements. It is the best in a network centric environment and the best as a completely all-in-one individual aircraft. Many foreign militaries do have the money because nearly everyone is buying F-35. It is winning every competition.

Buying the F-35 is not giving a single failure point. It is the UAV drone AWAC that becomes useless if the network goes down.

Real world, from about a week ago, an example of we are meant to be talking about.
I don't see any correlation with expensive assets for peer on peer conflict need for these and similar;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTL2WKnAhWc

RJMAZ wrote:

It does meets all of your requirements.

Yes the F-35 is network centric. But not sure it has the processing power to function as an integrator. It would need to relay the data to a ground processing center if an AWACs or some other larger processing platform, like a P-8A is not near by.

This is probably happening in Ukraine right now. All the data processing is probably being done at one or multiple ground station.

bt

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?