Drones over gatwick..

[Boycey0211]

The stuff that is out there now is scary stuff indeed. I dread to think of what other stuff is available that we don't know about...

Oh it's clever and accurate, but it's designed for warzones, not to shoot down small drones.

The last time I saw stuff like this was 2015, between 2010 and then the stuff we developed to combat indirect fire was fantastic. The technology has only got better since

 

[Yadda]

Oh it's clever and accurate, but it's designed for warzones, not to shoot down small drones.

The last time I saw stuff like this was 2015, between 2010 and then the stuff we developed to combat indirect fire was fantastic. The technology has only got better since

I wonder if this kind of drone threat will see the development of very small calibre/very low mass projectile systems (using the same target aquisition systems as their bigger brothers) for deployment in populated civilian areas?

Like a .177 lead pellet Phalanx/Metal Storm.

 

[Rroff]

Oh it's clever and accurate, but it's designed for warzones, not to shoot down small drones.

The last time I saw stuff like this was 2015, between 2010 and then the stuff we developed to combat indirect fire was fantastic. The technology has only got better since

The ability to identify and track (when you have visual line of sight) drones has been around awhile - someone home brewed a system that automatically targetted and fired an airsoft P90 at drones years ago.

 

[dowie]

I wonder if this kind of drone threat will see the development of very small calibre/very low mass projectile systems (using the same target aquisition systems as their bigger brothers) for deployment in populated civilian areas?

Like a .177 led pellet Phalanx/Metal Storm.

They probably won't - same problem as police snipers wanting to shoot it down - the bullets still end up going somewhere.

If drones become a serious threat in future (from say rogue states and terrorist organisations etc..) then perhaps a laser weapon would be of use in that sort of scenario. The US Navy is already making use of them in tests.

 

[Yadda]

They probably won't - same problem as police snipers wanting to shoot it down - the bullets still end up going somewhere.

If drones become a serious threat in future (from say rogue states and terrorist organisations etc..) then perhaps a laser weapon would be of use in that sort of scenario. The US Navy is already making use of them in tests.

You could be right but a .177 lead pellet can't really be compared to a round from a sniper rifle.

 

[Rroff]

Laser is a possibility - much more controllable system would be a faster moving UAV type craft acting like a smart missile that could intercept and in some way disable or destroy them either via collision or some other mechanism in close proximity.

You could be right but a .177 lead pellet can't really be compared to a round from a sniper rifle.

Realistically you'd be engaging these drones from atleast 200-300m, probably more, in a scenario like this which is beyond the effective range of .177 even a bunch of them is not guaranteed to bring down a drone at these kind of ranges.

 

[dowie]

You could be right but a .177 led pellet can't really be compared to a round from a sniper rifle.

If you're firing something (or potentially many of such things) that is/are going to be effective enough to punch holes in and potentially disable a drone (that might well be something beyond a cheap plastic thing from Argos) then, if it is effective at doing that at range it is also likely effective at punching holes in things on the ground too. Remember if you've got a drone flying at say 50ft or 100ft then unless it happens to fly quite close to the thing you're shooting bullets from then you're going to be firing at an angle closer to horizontal than vertical.

 

[Yadda]

If you're firing something (or potentially many of such things) that is/are going to be effective enough to punch holes in and potentially disable a drone (that might well be something beyond a cheap plastic thing from Argos) then, if it is effective at doing that at range it is also likely effective at punching holes in things on the ground too. Remember if you've got a drone flying at say 50ft or 100ft then unless it happens to fly quite close to the thing you're shooting bullets from then you're going to be firing at an angle closer to horizontal than vertical.

You don't have to punch holes in it. Most of a drone's footprint is its props, which are very delicate. Take one out and it falls out of the sky.

 

[dowie]

You don't have to punch holes in it. Most of a drone's footprint is its props, which are very delicate. Take one out and it falls out of the sky.

Doesn't really matter tbh... you're not going to rely on something that just fires off a load of ammunition into an urban area in order to disable a drone, it is just silliness.

 

[Rroff]

If you're firing something (or potentially many of such things) that is/are going to be effective enough to punch holes in and potentially disable a drone (that might well be something beyond a cheap plastic thing from Argos) then, if it is effective at doing that at range it is also likely effective at punching holes in things on the ground too. Remember if you've got a drone flying at say 50ft or 100ft then unless it happens to fly quite close to the thing you're shooting bullets from then you're going to be firing at an angle closer to horizontal than vertical.

Looking at the layout and scale of an airport like Gatwick you'd need dozens and dozens of installations to cover the appropriate area with a low caliber round - realistically you are talking well into the rifle calibers for the distance involved.

EDIT: Yeah and engaging a drone flying at between ~30 feet and ~500 feet up from an installation that is potentially 2500 feet horizontally that is quite a low angle especially if using rounds that can easily be still lethal at 2-3 miles.

 

[dowie]

Looking at the layout and scale of an airport like Gatwick you'd need dozens and dozens of installations to cover the appropriate area with a low caliber round - realistically you are talking well into the rifle calibers for the distance involved.

Indeed, that's kind of the point I'm getting at - if you want to be able to fire these projectiles over any decent range and have them be effective then they're likely going to be quite hazardous to people too.

 

[Yadda]

Realistically you'd be engaging these drones from atleast 200-300m, probably more, in a scenario like this which is beyond the effective range of .177 even a bunch of them is not guaranteed to bring down a drone at these kind of ranges.

You'd need an array of them to make up for their short range but it could work.

Doesn't really matter tbh... you're not going to rely on something that just fires off a load of ammunition into an urban area in order to disable a drone, it is just silliness.

If their range was short enough then the risk would be small.

 

[Rroff]

Far simpler just to have some kind of UAV with some kind of attachment for colliding with a drone on it and software to aid in plotting an intercept vector heh. Might even be possible to have something that fired some kind of net that snarled up the rotors and then deployed a parachute to bring the drone down safely :s

 

[Yadda]

Far simpler just to have some kind of UAV with some kind of attachment for colliding with a drone on it and software to aid in plotting an intercept vector heh. Might even be possible to have something that fired some kind of net that snarled up the rotors and then deployed a parachute to bring the drone down safely :s

"Silly string" would do it.

 

[dowie]

This is the sort of thing that could be used if drones become a more serious threat in future. Not this nonsense about some air defence system apparently using small magical bullets that will take down drones but seemingly not punch holes in things/people.

Unlike bullets the laser doesn't have the same issue with gravity and will carry on up into the sky.

 

[itchy]

I think its funny for some reason.

The calamity over this is stupid, it all does not make sense. A few drones in airspace can take a airport down. Not having it at all something else is going on.

Planes can land on one engine even if a drone took one out which is unlikely.

Its all scaremongering, happy xmas and fly safe.

 

[Yadda]

This is the sort of thing that could be used if drones become a more serious threat in future. Not this nonsense about some air defence system apparently using small magical bullets that will take down drones but seemingly not punch holes in things/people.

Lol, .177 pellets aren't "magical". Don't be daft now - you can buy them in any gun shop.

 

[KiNgPiN83]

Just need one of these: https://www.droneshield.com/dronegun-tactical/#

 

[robj20]

That's a bit convoluted - typically range is pretty short unless you're using a directional antenna.

This sounds like a couple of idiots to me rather than someone engineering a complex situation with a remote control station. You can't just control a drone from any random wifi network at will.

What you can easily control one via your mobile via mobile internet, just put the right receiver in the done and a sim card and away you go.

 

[Malevolence]

This is the sort of thing that could be used if drones become a more serious threat in future. Not this nonsense about some air defence system apparently using small magical bullets that will take down drones but seemingly not punch holes in things/people.

Unlike bullets the laser doesn't have the same issue with gravity and will carry on up into the sky.

Childish I know, but I still find it hilarious that they mounted this on the USS Ponce. At least we get the cool names, our DEW is called 'Dragonfire'.