this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
284 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former CEO of Google has been quietly working on a military startup for “suicide” attack drones.::The former Google CEO has been quietly working on a military startup called White Stork with plans to design “kamikaze” attack drones.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I think something cooler would be a fleet of micro-drones that seek out and destroy other drones. Since it doesn't need to have a transceiver itself, seeking out anything broadcasting from above it at ~2.4ghz would be a challenge, but not impossible.

They don't even need to have explosives. Just speed and a good collision path. If it tracks someone's cell phone that could be awkward, but not deadly.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That’s an interesting thought. At first I was wondering what would distinguish them from standard anti-aircraft systems, and then it clicked.

They’d have to be fast - at least with the ability to put on a burst of speed significantly higher than that of the target drone. Making it have an explosive increases the damage and potentially area of effect, but if you think about it like the kinetic kill vehicles designed to take out ICBMs, I think you can just whack the target drone hard enough to knock it out while potentially increasing speed, decreasing weight, and decreasing costs.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If not speed, just having something to entangle a prop would work too. It's not that I have anything against explosives, it's just that they are heavy and it's just another mechanical bit that can malfunction. (However, a device that is functionally equivalent to a shotgun shell isn't that heavy and doesn't need complex triggering.)

Also, what I was thinking of would only really work against drones that drop munitions or against drones that are used for recon. You did get me thinking about suicide drones again though... Once a suicide drone starts their kill run, its too late and it's hard to hit.

Since the war in Ukraine started, I have been thinking a ton about small anti-drone systems for grunts. They would need to be compact enough to carry in a pocket and be durable enough to survive trench warfare life and at least be functional 99% of the time. Manufacturing at scale would solve some cost issues, but not completely. These conditions also hamper the capabilities of such a drone, a lot.

Side thought- If a shotgun-type concept is used, there is also a novel shell design that would be perfect:

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I like the bola-shot shotgun shell. I was thinking of how to eliminate the need for super precise targeting, to keep unit cost and complexity at a minimum.

How about a stringy polymer like Silly String but serious. Formulate it to be gummy and stronger and use a tiny charge to eject it through orifices in all directions. It would gum up props and cause the target to drop out of the sky. You’d only need a drone complex enough to get within a couple of feet of the target in any direction.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Yep. Super simple stuff. All you really need to do is disable one propeller and it's game over. No lasers, no explosives. All you need is something that functions as a bit of string, TBH. The drones that use more than 4 propellers may need a little more work, but it's the same concept.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I find ground-based systems more effective as a defensive measure, tho. No limit on weight, no added energy consumption just to be ready to react. I think germans showcased some autocannon like that. It's easier to spot and destroy, but also easier to maintain a drone-less perimeter.

On the other hand, flying antidrone fleet can be an offensive weapon. Everyone watches the front from the sky nowadays, so quickly pulling their eyes off before pushing forward can be a lifesaver.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

That's Gepard, but there are also laser based weapons and loads and loads of EW (mostly jammers)

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What stops your fleet from destroying it's own?

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They wouldn't need any kind of radio themselves.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. What about helicopters and what not?

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

As in, radio interference from helicopters?

Well, the intention is a last-resort defense. There have been hundreds of videos where soldiers on the ground see drones way in advance. (Not kamikaze drones, but recon/grenade droppers.) You open box, point mini-drone in the general direction of the bad drone that is tracking you and press a button. The time window would be very short.

In theory, only a small antenna pair on the mini-drone is needed to approximate the position of a Mavic if it's already pointed in that direction. I think even an ESP32 might be able to do the math fast enough, but I dunno.

If you mean to use a swarm of drones to attack a helicopter, I haven't thought about that.