UAV World Record - 3,051 Drones Simultaneous Display - Military Discussion

[PACOX]

Not really. Missiles are very expensive, and in the case of cruise missiles, very large. It would take over half of all US Navy cruisers and destroyers armed with nothing but cruise missiles to fire off 5000 of them.

Whoa whoa whoa Mr Moneybags. Who said we're not talking about a bunch of dumb rockets on some pontoons?

[Kellhound]

If I were the Red Team here, I would program them ahead of time, so any on-target signal would be unnecessary. I don't have an answer to the GPS jamming, however. Interesting re the C-RAM cycle rate, there have been some...discussions on that matter. I guessed their cycle rate would prevent them from defending a target.

I enjoy discussing both sides of an issue, so to poke holes in my own idea, I think mass production might be a factor, along with transportation to an effect launch/initiation range.

GPS is rather easy to jam, especially civilian receivers.

They were never intended to engage a high number of targets.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoa whoa whoa Mr Moneybags. Who said we're not talking about a bunch of dumb rockets on some pontoons?

Dumb rockets are not missiles, by definition. They also are only effective in large numbers, which still becomes costly and not easily hidden.

[PACOX]

Dumb rockets are not missiles, by definition. They also are only effective in large numbers, which still becomes costly and not easily hidden.

So like a bunch of disposable drones?

[Kellhound]

So like a bunch of disposable drones?

Drones are cheaper than rockets, and more accurate. Drones are also very easy to make by anyone skilled in electronics and programming.

[Orange Joe]

?...no...I can't answer it. That's my point. Because it's been my question the entire time. And you said that info wasn't available. So we don't have to continue this discussion anymore. But for some reason you just need to keep coming back to it. Really tells us a lot about you.

So what good is telling you the cycle rate when you don't even know what rate is required to take your drones down?


And if you haven't noticed. I don't really cared if the guy that sucks Elon cock thinks I'm childish is that childish enough for you.

[Mayhem]

I think a lot about shit like this, and just how truly easy it could be to cause some real havoc if you were determined.

Seriously, consumer level drones have far more "practical" applications in small scale attacks in the vein of terrorism.

Fairly easy.

[Easo]

Oh look, it is the drone scare topic. Did someone look at videos from the Karabakh war or what? Or rewatched "Slaughterbots" few times too much?
Your 3k Amazon drones cannot fly to "enemy division headquarters" simply because their range is too small. Your own headquarters will be the prime target for ballistic missile strike making your drones lose their control center making them unusable.
There is answer to everything in military, drones are not superweapons, there are a lot of very different drones for very different tasks and with very different capabilities. The average Joe cannot differentiate between them.

[Thekri]

If a country could put out major drone swarms, such as my suggestion of 5,000+ in one attack, does the United States have the ability to defend a military target from it?

Yes.

5,000 is a big target, there are plenty of options to deal with them. Electromagnetic jamming and air burst explosives both clear large numbers of them if it come to that. The main point is that launching 5,000 of them becomes really obvious, and sacrifices the advantages of using them in the first place. These drones are really terrible weapon systems on an individual level, their strength is that they are cheap and quick to employ. When you hear military types talk about "Drone swarms" you are typically looking at somewhere around 100 max, but used in a coordinated fashion against a lightly defended target. More typically it is going to be 10-20. The sort of attack that hit the Saudi Oil facility has little in common with these tiny little quadcopters. That strike used long range military grade drones that struck from hundreds of miles away. Yes, there was a lot of them, and there was a variety of types used, but it has more in common with a conventional aircraft strike then a quadcopter zerg rush.

[Mayhem]

If a country could put out major drone swarms, such as my suggestion of 5,000+ in one attack, does the United States have the ability to defend a military target from it?

How would that country get 5000+ drones in deployment range near anything with a US flag on it?

[cubby]

How would that country get 5000+ drones in deployment range near anything with a US flag on it?

Yeah, deployment is a huge issue - in my wildest dreams only would a commercial drone have a 300 mile range, and even that would be too close to properly deploy. Plus all the other issues others have brought up.

Seems like these little guys are best suited for small deployment soft target operations.

[Kellhound]

Yeah, deployment is a huge issue - in my wildest dreams only would a commercial drone have a 300 mile range, and even that would be too close to properly deploy. Plus all the other issues others have brought up.

Seems like these little guys are best suited for small deployment soft target operations.

I know of at least one UAV that was designed for commercial use that had an endurance of 15+ hours. It didn't sell well and was repackaged for military use.

[Rustedsaint]

I’m sure various governments have think tanks that considered this possibility but it’s rather unlikely that this amount of drones would ever attack a base.
This demonstration took months of planning/programming and had a large amount of transmitters in the area set up specifically for this event.
It’s more likely that only a handful of drones would be used to down aircraft by crashing into them.

[Gaaz]

When it comes to swarm attacks as discussed in this thread, commercial drones are completely useless. If they are sufficiently small and cheap - they lack any damage potential. You control / launch center would need to be extremely close to the target to even reach it, and you will lack ordinance to do any damage to anything but most fragile things. It would be hard to sneak thousands of drones to an active airfield, radars and all. And aircraft are probably the only valuable asset that could be damaged by a pound of high explosive with a non shaped charge and no heavy fragmentation shell.
A much better alternative would be so roll an artillery piece into range and take several shots at the target location. An ancient D-30 cannon, if I remember correctly, can use WW2 OF-472 ammunition and is in service in 50 or so militaries around the world. Cheap as dirt, 16km range, 22km with advanced Chinese ammo, shots can not be intercepted and a cannon would be very difficult to locate. In the best case scenario for the defending side, the cannon would still have at least 15 minutes of firing uninterrupted. Theoretically that is 120 27kg HE shells. But even if we halve that, this is a lot of hurt. Realistically though, the cannon would be able to fire for much longer, possibly hours. Not only would you have to locate it, you would have to reach it by travelling these 16km. And even in the unlikely scenario when you have access to attack aircraft, sending them would be extremely risky - what if this cannon is a bait and there are several AA systems in the area? Even a hand held AA launcher can easily take out a helicopter, and a plane would find it difficult to locate and engage a fortified and / or a camouflaged target with no assistance from the ground.
My point is - there are much more dangerous things out there. Commercial drones are not suitable for military operations, possibly with the exception of short range surveillance. But even then they would be severely lacking compared to dedicated military drones.

[Kellhound]

When it comes to swarm attacks as discussed in this thread, commercial drones are completely useless. If they are sufficiently small and cheap - they lack any damage potential. You control / launch center would need to be extremely close to the target to even reach it, and you will lack ordinance to do any damage to anything but most fragile things. It would be hard to sneak thousands of drones to an active airfield, radars and all. And aircraft are probably the only valuable asset that could be damaged by a pound of high explosive with a non shaped charge and no heavy fragmentation shell.
A much better alternative would be so roll an artillery piece into range and take several shots at the target location. An ancient D-30 cannon, if I remember correctly, can use WW2 OF-472 ammunition and is in service in 50 or so militaries around the world. Cheap as dirt, 16km range, 22km with advanced Chinese ammo, shots can not be intercepted and a cannon would be very difficult to locate. In the best case scenario for the defending side, the cannon would still have at least 15 minutes of firing uninterrupted. Theoretically that is 120 27kg HE shells. But even if we halve that, this is a lot of hurt. Realistically though, the cannon would be able to fire for much longer, possibly hours. Not only would you have to locate it, you would have to reach it by travelling these 16km. And even in the unlikely scenario when you have access to attack aircraft, sending them would be extremely risky - what if this cannon is a bait and there are several AA systems in the area? Even a hand held AA launcher can easily take out a helicopter, and a plane would find it difficult to locate and engage a fortified and / or a camouflaged target with no assistance from the ground.
My point is - there are much more dangerous things out there. Commercial drones are not suitable for military operations, possibly with the exception of short range surveillance. But even then they would be severely lacking compared to dedicated military drones.

Counter battery radar would make it very easy to find a 122mm or 152mm howitzer firing. They are also hard to clandestinely move behind enemy lines.

[Logwyn]

That could definitely work - or a similar system. You'd have to beef up the targeting software, loading system, and sheer numbers to address 5,000 targets essentially all at once.

- - - Updated - - -



Interesting - would literally a giant fan work as a countermeasure?

Keep in mind - something like this has already been completed on a smaller scale, hitting soft targets.

Maybe. Could just hire the local turkey hunt or duck shooters to show up. Offer a case of free beer for every 100 you shoot down.

[Gaaz]

Counter battery radar would make it very easy to find a 122mm or 152mm howitzer firing. They are also hard to clandestinely move behind enemy lines.

Counter battery radars are extremely rare. To the point where some of the major military powers have a handful of them. Or even none at all. If I remember correctly, there are none in Iraq and just a handful in Afghanistan - mostly British and Polish installations. Point is, you can easily find a suitable target. More so, you would be unlucky in the extreme to even encounter one. Also, a D-30 or a similar system can be pulled by a pickup truck, let alone something bigger. Likely by a couple of horses as well. You can also do this:

And why would you need to move behind enemy lines with a 16km range? In Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria military control is extremely limited to areas close to military installations. To the point when you actually have to engage a sudden enemy truck as it drives past you. Or suddenly encounter 3 T-55A while on a patrol a few miles from your base.

[Kellhound]

Counter battery radars are extremely rare. To the point where some of the major military powers have a handful of them. Or even none at all. If I remember correctly, there are none in Iraq and just a handful in Afghanistan - mostly British and Polish installations. Point is, you can easily find a suitable target. More so, you would be unlucky in the extreme to even encounter one. Also, a D-30 or a similar system can be pulled by a pickup truck, let alone something bigger. Likely by a couple of horses as well. You can also do this:

And why would you need to move behind enemy lines with a 16km range? In Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria military control is extremely limited to areas close to military installations. To the point when you actually have to engage a sudden enemy truck as it drives past you. Or suddenly encounter 3 T-55A while on a patrol a few miles from your base.

The US has hundreds of them. Any towed howitzer is DOA against a high end threat these days. They take too long to emplace and way to move before counter battery fire from a MLRS hits. There is a reason you see Palestinians firing rockets and not howitzers into Israel.

[Mayhem]

There is a reason you see Palestinians firing rockets and not howitzers into Israel.

Yeah, the reason is, they can't just willy nilly import whatever they want which makes it a bit hard to you know, build your own artillery or even buy one.

[Kellhound]

Yeah, the reason is, they can't just willy nilly import whatever they want which makes it a bit hard to you know, build your own artillery or even buy one.

Goes for most groups that would be attracted to small UAVs as primary weapons.

[Mayhem]

Goes for most groups that would be attracted to small UAVs as primary weapons.

True, but that's a different point.