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

How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 454 posts

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#331

Post by vasco »

rollcat wrote: post #320
_1tem wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article did not even cover some of the weird solutions being deployed against drones. For example, Russia has surrounded many of their critical infrastructure sites with huge nets (similar to golf course barrier netting). They have also developed anti-drone drones that drop nets from above, catching and tangling target drones in a bunch of netting that simply snags the blades.

> They have also developed anti-drone drones that drop nets from above, catching and tangling target drones in a bunch of netting that simply snags the blades. Yeah if we could just all agree that from now on, all warfare is limited to drone-on-drone engagements.

If we could agree on that we'd agree on simply simulating war, no need to actually send drones. But it's unlikely to happen for the same reason hero fights instead of army fights didn't happen like in the movies. Ultimately war is about a difference of opinion strong enough to not care about loss of life, so after a country would lose the simulation they'd just go onto the real war part anyway.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#332

Post by adammarples »

wongarsu wrote: post #289
Y_Y wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The programming can be set-and-forget, meaning operations can be staged months ahead of deployment and make it difficult to find or prevent. This is something I haven't considered before. What's the worst case here? Is it feasible for me to go live on a farm in , buy a fleet of DJI drones at flea markets etc, stick something harmful to them, then hide them in the woods. I can move away, wait a year or two, and then…

In a pre-drone world you can get explosives, divide them into X equal sized packages, add a timer set to the same point in time to each, then travel around the country hiding them in high-traffic areas. Yes, that approach is inferior to the drone version. You have to hide them inconspicuously, and a bomb sniffing dog could find them. But you can visit a lot of places in a single European country or US state within on…

The drone scenario is very different, all you have to do is get close-ish to your target. This is very different than having a stick of c4 sit on your target for months. You have to get them to drone-range, say in the back of a lorry, on a roof somewhere, in a box. Then the programming and or AI can kick in and do the last mile for you, whenever you need. Case in point is the Ukrainian attack on the air fields, they parked a lorry nearby.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#333

Post by ethbr1 »

GoatInGrey wrote: post #322
vasco wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an engineer, I am fascinated by it all. As a human, I am horrified that we democratized violence on this scale. How do you even defend against this in a terrorist use case? When a small drone with a grenade or homemade explosive is so accessible? Any Christmas market in central Europe these days is surrounded by car barriers to prevent mass run-overs, but what do you do when soon someone has the idea of dropping…

It's going to be an analogue of the situation with firearms today where the assailant has an asymmetrical advantage over civilians but not the countermeasure (police). Also, the US military has been stockpiling kinetic drone countermeasures for about four years now. The idea is you get a hardened, ~11 pound autonomous drone that slams into the target at roughly 90 mph and physically destroys it before returning home.…

The "unique" part is two-fold.

   1. It's cheap.
   2. It's anonymous.
The fact that we haven't had more drone terror attacks says more about the technological slowness of terrorists than its infeasibility.

And eventually terrorists catch up. (Probably after the Russia-Ukraine war ends and some skilled people from both sides are unemployed)

It's infeasible to blanket every inch of civilian space with kinetic or EW anti-drone systems.

They may become commonplace at mass events (concerts, parades, gatherings, etc.) but will never cover all soft targets.

And unlike the nearest analog in chemical weapons, drones are dual-use, stable, and easily assembled.

The only reason the 1995 Tokyo Subway attacks [0] weren't worse was because of ineptitude.

Someone could be a quarter as intelligent and successfully fly an FPV drone into a target.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack#Ch...

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#334

Post by glitchc »

tguvot wrote: post #316
glitchc wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the demo done recently? The article might be misleading. The IDF tested 20 different systems produced by their military OEMs. It wasn't just lasers, and lasers are far from being the clear winner. Here's the official post, it contains a demonstration video: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/israelimod_israel-mod-complet...

no https://www.yahoo.com/news/historic-breakthrough-idf-reveals...

Did you read your own article? It was developed last year and one of the weapons tested in February of this year as per the IDF post. The rest is Rafael marketing speak.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#335

Post by glitchc »

Oarch wrote: post #327
glitchc wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that a focused laser will put a hole through the drone, much like an armor piercing round, but that is often insufficient to disable the drone. A larger ballistic projectile (think a solid shell or a rock) is much more effective. Alternative energy weapons based on microwaves and SPL also work well.

Presumably hitting any rotor, even a small amount, could be enough to bring it down? They're finely balanced things

Already tested. Success rate is too low. A great deal of aenergy gets wasted.

Remember, this is about asymmetric warfare. If the number of rounds or amount of energy required costs more than the drone it shoots down, then it's not an effective deterrent. Militaries are looking for single-shot weapons to take down drones. Fire once and move on. It's the only way to deal with a swarm. Think about it for a bit and it will become very obvious.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#336

Post by tguvot »

glitchc wrote: post #334
tguvot wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no https://www.yahoo.com/news/historic-breakthrough-idf-reveals...

Did you read your own article? It was developed last year and one of the weapons tested in February of this year as per the IDF post. The rest is Rafael marketing speak.

Did you read the article ? It starts with

>In a historic breakthrough, the IDF on Wednesday announced that an unnamed laser defense system similar to the much celebrated Iron Beam laser system has shot down dozens of aerial threats during the war.

>Already in fall 2024, The Jerusalem Post had learned that the IDF had used laser defense systems in operational situations but was barred from reporting on that at the time.

It was all over Israeli news together with videos of operational intercepts.

it has nothing to do with "february cookoff" of different systems and orders for iron beam were placed in january with deployment by the end of the year

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#337

Post by fancyfredbot »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #285
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you even defend against this in a terrorist use case? When a small drone with a grenade or homemade explosive is so accessible? I can see this from the other perspective. I've read stories for the past 30 years now about police forces and swat teams abusing people, murdering people because someone filled out the address wrong on a warrant, etc. And I wonder, in the coming years, if those sorts of scenarios wi…

Speaking just for myself, I am not currently stockpiling explosive-carrying drones in preparation for an encounter with over-zealous police. Yes, such incidents happen. They could even happen to me. Still, I don't worry about them enough to go to that length. (Nor do I see things ending well for me if I did.)

Give it a go and you might be surprised! Stockpiling explosive-carrying drones in preparation for an encounter with over-zealous police can be an educational and absorbing hobby. Many people are sceptical of how things will end for them, but once they start they are drawn in by the friendly and supportive community and doubts like this are quickly forgotten.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#338

Post by reaperducer »

vasco wrote: post #331
rollcat wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have also developed anti-drone drones that drop nets from above, catching and tangling target drones in a bunch of netting that simply snags the blades. Yeah if we could just all agree that from now on, all warfare is limited to drone-on-drone engagements.

If we could agree on that we'd agree on simply simulating war, no need to actually send drones. But it's unlikely to happen for the same reason hero fights instead of army fights didn't happen like in the movies. Ultimately war is about a difference of opinion strong enough to not care about loss of life, so after a country would lose the simulation they'd just go onto the real war part anyway.

If we could agree on that we'd agree on simply simulating war, no need to actually send drones.

That was an episode of Star Trek.

Two warring cultures simulated war. The computers told each side how many casualties there were, and people reported to the extermination chambers.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#339

Post by giantrobot »

twothreeone wrote: post #198
giantrobot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over cellular modems in the drones with Russian SIM cards. The operation was prepared for months in advance. Getting a bunch of pre-paid SIM cards from the Russian equivalent to 7-11 (which might just be 7-11) was probably the easiest part of the operation.

Isn't GSM super easy to jam? Also, there's civilian cellular coverage in Siberia? And right next to military bases?? Wow..

Jamming only works when there's equipment in place and activated. Prior to this attack there was no reason for Russia to even have jamming equipment located at a base deep inside their borders let alone active.

Re: How Ukraine’s killer drones are beating Russian jamming

#340

Post by koonsolo »

dboreham wrote: post #142
koonsolo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other countries have hangars or bunkers to store their planes. That Russia doesn't, is really beyond comprehension.

Supposedly they had to be outside to comply with START provisions. But US keeps B-52s (and pretty much all fighters) outside. They might be under tin roofs in desert locations to keep cool. Not in bunkers.

Can you explain why they have tires on the wings?
Post reply on HN