Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 214 posts

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#201

Post by ethbr0 »

lazide wrote: post #198
imtringued wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing we have now (publicly) is going to do a damn against a shipping container full of 2-5 lb drones each carrying 1 lb of C4 in a swarm with cheap off the shelf sensors going 100 mph nap of the earth in a distributed pattern. And that is currently entirely doable with off the shelf drones using existing software and published techniques for peanuts. Add in some decent programming and logistics talent, and that i…

That is not true. Existing technology can take out remote controlled conventional drones with EW. I know of no existing (human proximity safe) EW that can handle optical based or internal (IMU) inertial autonomous flight, and both of those are more than good enough in this scenario (though optical may limit the upper speed bounds depending on the onboard processing capabilities). IMU based (pre programmed) could easi…

The Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) is probably what you're looking for.

The US Army is looking to field a demonstrator by 2022 & deploy by 2024.

They're exploring both laser and microwave / EM for the counter-UAS role. In complement to existing SAMs for higher-value/capability targets.

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/ms-ifpc_inc_2-i/

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#202

Post by kragen »

jvanderbot wrote: post #200
kragen wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

smart targeting is clearly crucial, yes. but the objective of warfare is not to wreak (or wreck, heh) terrible destruction; it is to break the enemy's will to resist. by themselves, drones don't tell you who to target or where they are; they just gather surveillance data and deliver munitions, very precisely and in a way that is very difficult to stop. in combination with things like facebook data and cellphone subsc…

I'm challenging the supporting assumptions you described. Real time career knowledge, real time non visual person tracking, real time coordinated search across cities, real time IFF, lethal payloads on them all, real time localization. There's a lot of requirements there. An alien invasion would probably use clouds of drones in this way. The US could. Russia, China. After some testing. But not the next ISIS. And thos…

> Real time career knowledge, real time non visual person tracking, real time coordinated search across cities, real time IFF, lethal payloads on them all, real time localization. There's a lot of requirements there. ... Are they within US borders? How? Flew in? Launched from within? How did they get close enough? A ship? Infiltration?

Rather than go through and carefully solve the fascinating puzzle of how to destroy civilization step by step, I'm just going to point out that these things are not actually very difficult. Instead of hoping that the next Daesh can't recruit anyone who knows how to build an IMSI catcher, write a Facebook app, or use LinkedIn (or VKontakte if their adversary is Russia), think about what happens when there's a conflict between two adversaries that can.

> The US could. Russia, China. After some testing. But not the next ISIS.

Certainly the three states you mention could develop that capability, yes, although they don't currently have Slaughterbots fleets ready to launch. And Daesh certainly wasn't able to develop it, although they did drop a bunch of unguided hand grenades on people from remotely-piloted quadcopters. But what about Turkey? France? Rebels in the West Bank less incompetent than Hamas? The Zetas, who as I understand it have been running their own cellphone networks for 10 years? The Sinaloa cartel, which has thousands of drones carrying contraband across the US border? The Jalisco cartel, which is already targeting the families of police officers? The US-backed Guaidó faction in Venezuela? The US-backed military dictatorship currently running Egypt?

This isn't something that requires the budget of an aircraft carrier, and it's not something you can see from a satellite before it happens.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#203

Post by jvanderbot »

kragen wrote: post #202
jvanderbot wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm challenging the supporting assumptions you described. Real time career knowledge, real time non visual person tracking, real time coordinated search across cities, real time IFF, lethal payloads on them all, real time localization. There's a lot of requirements there. An alien invasion would probably use clouds of drones in this way. The US could. Russia, China. After some testing. But not the next ISIS. And thos…

> Real time career knowledge, real time non visual person tracking, real time coordinated search across cities, real time IFF, lethal payloads on them all, real time localization. There's a lot of requirements there. ... Are they within US borders? How? Flew in? Launched from within? How did they get close enough? A ship? Infiltration? Rather than go through and carefully solve the fascinating puzzle of how to destro…

Sure. 'Think of the possibilities' is a fun exercise. I'm more in the 'will it scale' camp, that's all.

I've actually worked in this area before. There's more attention on this than you might imagine, and less than it deserves. There's also better ways to use drones to cause terror and disrupt operations that I obv won't get into. Maybe its not tech fantasy as I originally said, but it is much further out than you originally said as well, and it's a bit overkill. If you wanted to have the effect of causing fear in soldiers using drones, I think (but don't know) there are easier ways that don't require the same limiting assumptuons about technology, logistics and scaling.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#204

Post by lazide »

ethbr0 wrote: post #201
lazide wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. Existing technology can take out remote controlled conventional drones with EW. I know of no existing (human proximity safe) EW that can handle optical based or internal (IMU) inertial autonomous flight, and both of those are more than good enough in this scenario (though optical may limit the upper speed bounds depending on the onboard processing capabilities). IMU based (pre programmed) could easi…

The Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) is probably what you're looking for. The US Army is looking to field a demonstrator by 2022 & deploy by 2024. They're exploring both laser and microwave / EM for the counter-UAS role. In complement to existing SAMs for higher-value/capability targets. https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/ms-ifpc_inc_2-i/

Thank god something is in the pipeline! Thank you for the links.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#205

Post by Animats »

tw04 wrote: post #149
jcrawfordor wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern CIWS are designed to be effective against substantially faster and more agile rockets. Drones really are slow and easy to take down compared to guided rockets and especially kinetic ones, and the military has been working on means of defending against those for decades. The Phalanx is being modified to serve as an anti-UAS system, for example. The challenge is more to do with detection than firing.

Most of those systems are designed to target dozens of incoming targets. It’s entirely reasonable and plausible for drone swarms to number in the thousands of targets. That ciws will likely exhaust its magazine before it can take out all the drones unless I’m missing something.

That's why Israel is begging the US for another billion dollars for reloads for their Iron Dome system. They're using expensive guided missiles to shoot down cheap unguided rockets.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#206

Post by kragen »

jvanderbot wrote: post #203
kragen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real time career knowledge, real time non visual person tracking, real time coordinated search across cities, real time IFF, lethal payloads on them all, real time localization. There's a lot of requirements there. ... Are they within US borders? How? Flew in? Launched from within? How did they get close enough? A ship? Infiltration? Rather than go through and carefully solve the fascinating puzzle of how to destro…

Sure. 'Think of the possibilities' is a fun exercise. I'm more in the 'will it scale' camp, that's all. I've actually worked in this area before. There's more attention on this than you might imagine, and less than it deserves. There's also better ways to use drones to cause terror and disrupt operations that I obv won't get into. Maybe its not tech fantasy as I originally said, but it is much further out than you or…

So, what do you think we can do to prevent it?

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#207

Post by pixl97 »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #29
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #4

Drones are the new aircraft carriers. That is, pre-WWII, the dominant naval ship was the battleship. Heavily armored, with enormous guns, military planners expected that the battle for the Atlantic and Pacific would be carried out by these monsters slugging it out. Though there were hints that planes could be quite effective against ships, few admirals realized that the longer range of an aircraft carrier would make…

Drones are the new infantry and land mines. For sea battles missiles still dominate, since all you need to do is destroy the ship with the drones. Drones fly around and autonomously eliminate targets while maintaining perimeters, which replaces infantry doing the same thing. Drones are easy to launch from land-based bases and due to their limited range are best suited to land-based operations. Aerial drones are easil…

>Aerial drones are easily countered by autonomous weapons systems that fire on drones quickly and accurately

If its military vs military then the drones wake up the counter defense which is then targeted by more expensive missiles.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#208

Post by jvanderbot »

kragen wrote: post #206
jvanderbot wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. 'Think of the possibilities' is a fun exercise. I'm more in the 'will it scale' camp, that's all. I've actually worked in this area before. There's more attention on this than you might imagine, and less than it deserves. There's also better ways to use drones to cause terror and disrupt operations that I obv won't get into. Maybe its not tech fantasy as I originally said, but it is much further out than you or…

So, what do you think we can do to prevent it?

Nice try, China.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#209

Post by kragen »

jvanderbot wrote: post #208
kragen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what do you think we can do to prevent it?

Nice try, China.

Heh! Actually, although I'm in Argentina, I thoroughly endorse 墨子's defensive program: if every country is safe against attacks, then all the people will be safe, while if every country is vulnerable to attacks, then life will be bitter and filled with grief. So, just as 墨子's followers worked to improve the fortifications of the various states of China so that none could gain by attacking another, I think we should figure out how to reduce our collective vulnerability to this kind of drone-swarm attack.

Except that I think it's kind of impossible and we are basically doomed.

Re: To protect against weaponized drones, we must understand their key strengths

#210

Post by ethbr0 »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #4

Drones are the new aircraft carriers. That is, pre-WWII, the dominant naval ship was the battleship. Heavily armored, with enormous guns, military planners expected that the battle for the Atlantic and Pacific would be carried out by these monsters slugging it out. Though there were hints that planes could be quite effective against ships, few admirals realized that the longer range of an aircraft carrier would make…

The battleship vs carrier debate, as we understand it today, is incomplete.

Carriers won over battleships in the 1930s, because of strike distance.

Carriers won in the 1950s+ because they were the more upgradeable platform.

If you built a battleship in 1945, and then developed a better cannon or missile in 1955, what were your options?

If you built a carrier in 1945, and then developed better aircraft and armaments for them in 1955, you retooled your carrier air groups. The 4 Ohio class SSBN -> SSGN conversions are the same lesson.

It's expensive to build a new boat. It's cheaper to put new things on a boat (of the right size / shape).

Following that logic, the conclusion is to invest in robust, large drone delivery vehicles (aircraft or missiles), that allow for simpler, iterable micro-drone development.

Post reply on HN