>>65038273
what would be the hypothetical false positive that would lead the operator to not immediately hit confirm as soon as a possible target is detected? these things are fast; there is not much time to discriminate and analyze. Also, having the spotter drone itself be the one engaging would be better than to have another drone do it; one less step in the kill chain.

>>65038629
>what would be the hypothetical false positive that would lead the operator to not immediately hit confirm as soon as a possible target is detected?
Feed is shown to the operator for him to make the call. If it's a target then all he does is flip a switch. The engagement itself is automated.
>having the spotter drone itself be the one engaging would be better
The spotter drone is the sensor carrier. Adding the rockets themselves would make them big and costly. It's designed to be a system that can just que whatever is nearest to engage. What's important is that the rockets themselves, while ideally having IR for final approach don't necessarily need anything internal making them extremely cheap which is what you need for an interceptor to be able to do the job. It has to be cheaper than the thing it's trying to kill.

Pretty sure a gun based system is superior for C-UAS self protection.

>>65038273
Doesnt work in urban
Doesnt work near tree clutter
Doesnt work near concealed launches
Implies the "hunter" can detect everything
Baiting "hunter" away a valid tactic
All the bullshit on the right is a complete waste of time

Childs drawing/10

>>65038759
>Feed is shown to the operator for him to make the call. If it's a target then all he does is flip a switch. The engagement itself is automated.
but what could it possibly be if not a target? if there is an alarm going off saying you've got incoming, why would the operator not immediately say to engage? at that point have the system automatically engage regardless

>>65040447
(me) think of it like a laser warning receiver. If the tanker sees on the screen "YOU'RE BEING LASED", he won't stop to think if it's an afghan kid with a Temu laser pointer having fun. He will hit "rotate turret, deploy IR smoke and engage" right away". At that point cut the operator from the equation for fastest countermeasure deployment.

>>65040447
You want to have a soldier "in-the-loop" so that your system doesn't accidentally engage a bird or a friendly drone or a child.

>>65042726
>doesn't accidentally engage a bird
birds in a warzone are dead anyway due to habitat destruction. Also... good luck dealing with the press because the system allows for the possibility of the soldier dying because of hesitation over fucking b i r d s

>friendly drones
can be handled automatically by IFF, no human

>child
how does the system machine trained to spot the shape of a drone get confused with the shape a child?

>enemy prints cardboard cutouts of children and puts them on drones to get the auto system to stand down KEK