Comment on Killer drones pioneered in Ukraine are the weapons of the future

• cynar@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Gun drones are perfectly viable. They just can’t fire well while flying. (At least not more than 1 shot) The current prototypes have to land and anchor themselves. They are currently machine guns, for area suppression, though anti-material would be viable.

  The gun drone is also not in the smoke cloud, it’s behind it. The smoke, chaff, strobes etc are just to break the ability to counter target it. You don’t need to just saturate the cloud, but the whole area behind it.

  As for the smoke, it’s not 1 cloud. A drone’s advantage is hyper mobility. A swarm would easily attack from multiple directions. Your gun is now required to saturate multiple clouds at multiple angles. 1 might be hiding something nasty, or 2 or none. Smoke (or chaff etc) drones would be dirt cheap, as would simple distraction drones.

  To fight it, you would either need to put up a wall of shrapnel, which would quickly deplete a mobile weapon, or get accurate targeting data. Both could be viable, depending on the situation, but it’s risky.

  As for engagement ranges. A drone swarm would be cut down by advancing over a large open area. I fully agree on that. It would also struggle engaging fixed defences. That changes in a city, or forest, or mountainous area. A patrol or convoy could be encircled by a swarm in seconds, engaging from multiple sides simultaneously.

  Your gun can fire 10 rounds a second. That’s 50 rounds in 5 seconds. 200 micro drones, hitting from all sides could easily overwhelm it. Most don’t even need a payload, they are $10-20 decoys. 1 clean hit on your gun however, and it is potentially disabled. At that point the more expensive stuff can potentially attack with impunity.

  source

  • dragontamer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Your gun can fire 10 rounds a second. That’s 50 rounds in 5 seconds. 200 micro drones, hitting from all sides could easily overwhelm it.

    It takes 3 minutes for a 60mph drone to travel 3 miles.

    It takes 1minute 30 seconds for a 120mph drone to travel 3 miles.

    So no. I’ll literally run out of ammo (70 seconds of firing) before you arrive.

    source

    • cynar@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Please show me a built up area where you have clear line of sight for 3 miles. 3-500m would be optimistic. You would have 10s to 100s of 15cm drones. They would flit around bins, cars, buildings and through windows. A racing drone can pull 4.5G of acceleration. It can spin that in a fraction of a second.

      3G is enough to cover 300m in around 5 seconds. That’s also assuming it is going from a dead start. If it can build up speed before entering line of sight, it would be even quicker.

      Even worse, they could easily spend 30 seconds to manoeuvre around you. The sensor package drones (cameras, lidar etc) playing peekaboo, to snatch data. By the time they move, they’ve built a complete 3D map. They know every blind spot, every area the gun can’t target. Your gun will go from nothing to shoot, to too many targets in a second or so. Most will just have extra batteries. They exist to draw fire. A few will have payloads designed to target your defences. Others will have payloads aimed at breaking up your situational awareness.

      If you engage the micro drones, then your firing arcs will give windows for heavier elements to engage you. If you don’t, then the armed micro drones will damage your defences or block your sensors, to create the same effect.

      source

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Adviika.

        source