Discuss cheap solutions to the drone problem.Not welcome:>dronefags>laser fags>missile fags>unknown technology fags
>>64681585I made several mp4's for your perousal. Some cheaper than others.
>>64681585>cheap solutions to the drone problem.Orchard Netting.Orchard Netting all the things.
>>64681631Works once and then its gone. You're also opening yourself to thing like 'tandem charges' for lack of a better word. Best to just fucking kill it.
>>6468158536 inch barrel semi auto shot guns
If you know of any interesting systems being developed and have some footage either post it or provide a link and I'll do it.
>>64681585lasers, missiles, and unknown technology
>>64681665We could also hide behind your mom, the drone will run out of battery before making his way around!
>>64681636Use MORE netting.ALL THE NETS, ALL THE PLACES, ALL THE TIME!
it has been solved already as these webms show. it's basically now up to who has the best AI software for autonomous targeting and execution and that goes to russians and the chinese most likely.
>>64681690>>>64681704>that goes to russians and the chinese most likely.Lmao get the fuck out.
This one is expensive but its way too cool not to post.
>>64681690Net gun
>>64681585I know nothing about electronics or drones, but can’t they use some sort of signal scrambler yadda yadda to interrupt the drones connection?
>>64681704Several western systems are already being tested in Ukraine. Last time I saw Russian counter-drone 'measures' it was a guy hitting it with a stick and some guy with what looked like his grandpas shotgun>>64681720Besides drones using anti-jamming tech fiberoptic drones are a thing now and you can't jam those.
>>64681737The use anti anti-jammer jammers
just use a fucking shotgun or put a lead of lead in the air.
>>64681765Drones now literally have tens of kilometers long fibre optic spools and are directly connected with the operator. Can't jam them.
>>64681774Anything else fly boy?
>>64681769Shotguns are weapons of last resort. They're also near useless if you're trying to protect, I dunno, an armored vehicle your in or your buddy 100m down the line. You better not miss either, drones are pretty fucking fast. Watch out for the blast while you're doing it too.You can see how easily this could've gone wrong.>>64681796I said no missile fags. Get out.
>>64681806>vehicle your in you're*
>>64681806It’s a chainsaw with powered by a rocket engine. The thrust is just the chainsaw motor letting off excess power.
Unironically the solutions are just remote weapon stations in 5.56/7.62 with AI targeting software, and soldiers trained to be proficient in semi-auto shotguns (probably with some smart optic like the Smash sight).
>>64681585What was the solution to the airplane problem?>Your own airplanes>Gun based AA>Missile based AAThe same counts for drones. Fighting drones with guns or lasers works, but it has short range. Interception drones are an obvious solution.
>>64681817Another problem with shotguns is that you're now no longer carrying an assault rifle, but a shotgun. AFAIK right now one man gets a shotgun and is supposed to protect the entire squad.
What's the matter GI Joe?Can't hit a moving target?
>>64681774>Approx 0.1% of drones now literally have tens of kilometers long fibre optic spools and are directly connected with the operator.FTFY.
>>64681817Are these cost effective against drone swarms?
>>64681833A duck wont kill you if you happen to miss it>>64681844I don't think you've been following the developments happening very well.
>>64681585What about a claymore mine aimed by a really cheap optical electrical guidance system. You would not need an expensive RCWS and a claymore mine is cheaper than an assault rifle/machine gun. Even though it would be single use, it would possibly more cost effective against drone swarms.
Have the cheap end of the scale. Single-shot net launcher using a blank rifle cartridge as propellant. Far wider spread than a shotgun, and it will tangle up the rotors on a small drone enough to crash it.
>>64681846>>64681869There are no drone swarms. You can't find a single example of frontline use of drone swarms.Doesn't happen for a variety of reasons.
>>64681873>no range>dies in blastpick both
>>64681868I have. Fiber-optic drones remain a vanishingly small minority of overall drones used. Your video is the result of literally multiple years of drone overflights on a stationary part of the front.
>>64681880More than enough range, actually. More than EFFECTIVE range for using a shotgun in the same role, in fact.
>>64681883>According to researchers' estimates, by the end of 2024, Ukraine's and Russia's production of fiber-optic FPV drones accounted for around 10%That's about 100x more than your estimate. They've only grown since.>In some areas of the front, soldiers have told DTU that fiber drones make up 70% or more of the enemy’s FPV drone attacks and cause more than half of overall casualtiesEspecially common in areas with heavy EW.
>>64681887I think you played too many videogames and believe shotguns have comically short ranges.
>>64681869you just invented Trophy APS
>>64681883>They're not common yet, despite being piss-easy to produce, so they will never be commonWhy are you so retarded?
>>64681585>I want solutions>Wait no, not any of the things that work! The solution to drones goes in this order; Disrupt logistics to reduce number of drones enemy has access to > Kill drone operators with overwhelming air power, indirect fire, or maneuver before they can saturate an area > Jam drones to force use of inferior wired systems > intercept drones with other drones > intercept drones with missiles > shoot down drones with flak > shoot down drones with lasers > physical barriers like nets creating protected spaces > shoot down drones with mounted, unmanned machineguns > shoot down drones with shotguns > shoot down drones with manned machineguns > typical armor survival onion stuff. Machineguns and shotguns are the absolute desperation option. A lot of shit is going wrong if you get to that stage. They can work, but they're low reliability and high risk. If you have a 99% success rate as a dude doing that full time, you'll still be dead within a year. If you're going that route then ideally you want no human behind the gun and some kind of remote weapon system, so at least a fuckup doesn't create a casualty. If you're deadset on being ghetto, start giving everyone some kind of M203 beehive round.
>>64681921That's like saying a tank doesn't need armor. Just kill everything that can possibly kill a tank in advance. If there are drones in the field you need a way to protect yourself from them. Its called the survival onion because it has layers.
>>64681921>Disrupt logistics to reduce number of drones enemy has access toNot a solution specific to drones. So, really, not a solution at all.>Kill drone operators with overwhelming air powerAI drones.>Jam drones to force use of inferior wired systemsAI drones.
>>64681927Yes, and some layers are more important than others. No one puts armor on jets, because it isn't cost effective or reasonable to do so. Solutions to the drone problem which lean mostly on the 'blow them up before they're deployed' side of things are viable. Solutions which lean on last second hard kill are non-viable. You can get some of the ones that slip through, and you should have those systems in place to do that, I agree. But if you aren't doing most of the lifting further up the chain, you're going to die horribly. Much like dealing with anti-shipping missiles it will always be relatively trivial to overwhelm last mile defences by simply launching more, and getting lucky once. Drones are so cheap that you can absolutely afford to do this over and over and over until you get lucky. >>64681936AI drones cease to be cheap. If you want unjammable drones they need to be wired. If they have high level autonomy then they're not only hugely more bulky to support more onboard computing, but they're also a friendly fire liability, and they also rapidly balloon in cost. More weight and energy means bigger batteries means slower with less range, etc. Fundamental tyranny of the rocket equation stuff. >Not a solution specific to drones. So, really, not a solution at all.So you're saying there's no solution to bullets, then? You don't consider shooting someone, before they shoot you, to be a solution?
>>64681921>intercept drones with other dronesI'm actually surprised we're still not seeing too many of these - unless the footage is being kept back, of course. But it's the most logical step: the only thing that can stop a drone with a heavy bomb is a faster drone with a less-heavy machine gun.Just follow/repeat the entire history and evolution of air combat, but remove the human pilots.
>>64681959Shooting a gun from a drone is pretty damn unreliable. Severe ammo constraints, bullets aren't even guaranteed to disable a drone depending on shot placement, severely unstable shooting platform, heavy, hard to use, etc, etc. We see plenty of drone on drone violence, but it's all with either explosive charges and suicide drones since trading 1:1 in the interception world is 100% worth it, or launching nets since they're a lot more reliable than bullets.
>>64681948>No one puts armor on jetsExcept we do on some, see the A-10 and its titanium bathtub. Comparing jets with armored vehicles and frontline troops is a false equivalence anyway. See attack helicopters, they're armored too. If shit is expected to get close to the enemy its usually armored. Jets aren't as a rule of thumb because they don't.>Solutions to the drone problem which lean mostly on the 'blow them up before they're deployed' side of things are viable.They're not unless you can literally blow up every single soldier while you're at it. They're not artillery pieces or radars. They're easily concealable and several can be carried by a single soldier. It's like pretending you can blow up every guy with an RPG. You can't.>You can get some of the ones that slip through, and you should have those systems in place to do that, I agree.Exactly. We don't have them though which is why your comparisons to ships kind of falls flat on its face. We're only in the first stages of solving this problem and still looking for the best solution hence this thread.
>cuts drone kill rate by 80%With the speed and camera quality we see there's a very small chance the operator will be able to pick out the actual soldier versus a decoy
>>64681969So, reinforced flying battering rams then?At what point do we loop back to missiles?
>>64681987Missiles are too expensive, drones are cheap. You can trade unevenely economically, winning the war is more important than saving a few bucks, but at some point you can't afford to spend 10:1.
>>64681979>Except we do on some, see the A-10 and its titanium bathtub.Which is considered woefully obsolete. There's a reason nothing more than maybe spall liners makes it onto anything modern. >See attack helicoptersAnother platform rapidly on its way to obsolescence? >They're not unless you can literally blow up every single soldier while you're at it. They're not artillery pieces or radars. They're easily concealable and several can be carried by a single soldier. It's like pretending you can blow up every guy with an RPG. You can't.Depends a lot on who and what and where you're fighting. If you've allowed the front to ossify as in Ukraine, no you can't unless you have a NATO tier airforce, in which case yes you can actually just blow up every single infantryman. If you're fighting an island hopping campaign in China then small infantry portable drones are mostly useless anyway.>Exactly. We don't have them though which is why your comparisons to ships kind of falls flat on its face. We're only in the first stages of solving this problem and still looking for the best solution hence this thread.Plenty of SPAAGs exist and are in service. Plenty of remote weapon systems exist, and are in service. More of them would probably be good, yeah. But ultimately this is a similar problem to dealing with artillery as infantry - you really can't. We are alive in a narrow window in which the drones are dumb enough and slow enough to be engage-able. AI drone guy is wrong and stupid about today, but at some point in the future he won't be, and it will become cost effective to give a very very fast drone a lot of autonomy. Especially as drone accuracy improves you can cut back on warhead size to save weight, to be even faster. Look at the difference in speed between a shitbox quadrotor and a racing drone, and imagine it's the latter you're dealing with rather than the former; nothing man operated can usefully engage that.
why dont they throw boomerangs where the wire is supposed to be? its wide enough to hit it and if you miss you have another shot when it comes back
>>64681999>Which is considered woefully obsolete. There's a reason nothing more than maybe spall liners makes it onto anything modern.Yet modern attack aircraft are armored. Even COIN aircaft, like the super tucano, are armored. The A-10 being obsolete has nothing to do with its armor.>Another platform rapidly on its way to obsolescence?They're literally being procured as we type this. >Depends a lot on who and what and where you're fighting. If you've allowed the front to ossify as in Ukraine, no you can't unless you have a NATO tier airforce, in which case yes you can actually just blow up every single infantryman.Were there Afghans running around with RPG's after 20 years in Afghanistan and hundreds of billion dollars spent on pacifying them? Yes? There you go.>If you're fighting an island hopping campaign in China then small infantry portable drones are mostly useless anywayPossibly the dubmest shit I've read today. Do you drones wont be used when you _reach_ the island? >Plenty of SPAAGs exist and are in serviceWe're not talking about SPAAGs and there aren't many in service. Additionally they're not suited for this kind of frontline use. How many Gepards have you seen roll up with Leopard tanks on the assault? They're far too expensive to be dealing with FPV drones.>But ultimately this is a similar problem to dealing with artillery as infantry - you really can't.Except you can. Why do you keep making these false equivalences? Infantry can't see fucking artillery. They can see drones that are literally flying into their faces. Shells can't be stopped by a guy with a shotgun, drones can. Small modern AESA panel radars can detect small drones kilometers away. Automated gun systems can then deal with them. They're not artillery shells that slam at you at 500 m/s and require massively sophisticated systems with mountains of ammunition to deal with. You're not turning a 50cal into a shell interceptor, but you can into a drone interceptor.
>>64682023Modern attack aircraft are obsolete. Everything they do can be performed better by loitering drone. I don't really care how they're built because they're all legacy systems and the super Tucano is for giga poors and grifting the government. >They're literally being procured as we type this. Grifting. >Were there Afghans running around with RPG's after 20 years in Afghanistan and hundreds of billion dollars spent on pacifying them? Yes? There you go.That has a lot more to do with the rules of engagement and an unwillingness to do the things which would have been necessary to actually 'win'. E.G. intentional destruction of local culture, ban on ownership of weapons for locals entirely, etc. >Possibly the dubmest shit I've read today. Do you drones wont be used when you _reach_ the island? Why do you think infantry on infantry will even be happening? If the USN 'takes' an island from the Chinese, it will be bombed until the troops on it surrender or are all dead, or vice versa. No one is going to conduct contested infantry on infantry landings. The marines are there to setup and operate TELs and SAMs and dig ditches and build airfields. They'll probably never even fire a rifle at a Chinaman the whole conflict. >Except you can. Why do you keep making these false equivalences? Infantry can't see fucking artillery. They can see drones that are literally flying into their faces. Shells can't be stopped by a guy with a shotgun, drones can. Not for long. >Small modern AESA panel radars can detect small drones kilometers away.[]The problem with small drones is that they can always just fly low, and then your detection range drops to practically nothing, and the problem just continues to get worse as the technology matures. A suicide racing drone is basically a mortar shell that flies nape of the earth. Yeah, some systems to deal with that would be nice but they're always going to be cope compared to stopping these things from launching.
>>64682042>Modern attack aircraft are obsolete.>Grifting.You can't just handwave thing you don't like away. SPAAG's were considered obsolete too which is why there's so few around nowadays. >That has a lot more to do with the rules of engagement and an unwillingness to do the things which would have been necessary to actually 'win'. E.G. intentional destruction of local culture, ban on ownership of weapons for locals entirely, etc.What rules of engagement prevented killing armed combatants? Oh, you can't do genocide? Yeah, you could just use nukes! Again the handwaving. Dude in a cave with an RPG is easily a dude in a cave with a FPV.>Why do you think infantry on infantry will even be happening?Lmao. Only infantry takes ground and only infantry holds ground. Has been true since forever and will continue to be true. This simple truism means infantry on infantry combat will continue to happen. Listening to people like you we'd take rifles away from troops.>If the USN 'takes' an island from the Chinese, it will be bombed until the troops on it surrender or are all deadAh, yes, just like they believed during world war 2 until they hit the beaches or the interior of the island. Turns out this hasn't ever worked once and enemies adapt. >Not for long.More handwaving>The problem with small drones is that they can always just fly lowExcept they don't see shit when they fly low and flying low doesn't avoid things like video trackers, thermal camers or sound sensors. They're all a thing now.>A suicide racing drone is basically a mortar shell that flies nape of the earth. No, they're not. Why did you switch the subject from artillery to mortars? The terminal velocity of a mortar shell can easily reach 200 m/s. You failed to adress my question about SPAAG's. How many do you see defending trench lines or going on the assault? Here's the last (You) since this is pointless and you're reduced to handwaving while making shit up as you go.
>>64682124SPAAG's are making a massive comeback though due to their usefulness against drones. We are seeing upgraded variants of the ZSU-23-4, Flakpanzer Gepard, 2K22M Tunguska, and new ones like the Rheinmetall Skyranger.
>>64682137Yes, exactly. Gepards were literally mothballed. That's why handwaving everything away as obsolete is retarded. He's essentially insinuating that assault rifles are obsolete since there won't be infantry on infantry combat.
>>646815858 gauge shotguns.
>>64681806Did he shoot it, or did crashing into the trees set it off?
>>64681806Militaries just need to start training trap & skeet.
nobody's going to like this, but the future of anti-drone warfare is a belt-fed 12ga or bigger automatic shotgunmetalstorm? it's just a retarded shotguna shotgun? too few shells and if you dump them all you're donedual/triple/quad/quintuple+mount machine guns? overkill for small fpv drones, if you don't hit it you're out 2+ machine gunsthe retarded 12 gauge dshk from metro 2033 will save us
For me it's people insisting the future of warfare will be entirely remote controlled/automated/ai in two more weeks when we've had the ability to do that for decades and for some odd reason, never commit.
