And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Friday, October 21, 2022
Rheinmetall Air Defence: Skynex truck-mounted engaging drone swarm
Well, thank heavens those evil drones knew they should just hover in place during an attack, Who knows what would have happened if they mapped the terrain and came in all Higgly piggly at 4” above the ground. Your pal Scott.
Might have been successful if they'd used my dronecraft carrier with a 100 bird capacity. Pilot the carrier to within a quarter mile of the target then release attack drones. After the mission the birds redock inside the carrier for the ride back to hotel sierra.
Drone tech is evolving so quickly that dropping a bunch of $$ on a system designed for any one or at best, a limited type of drone threat (i.e., low and slow) seems unwise. But then again, the US Military has very rarely had a problem with that nonsense in the past, so this sort of boondoggle is unsurprising. What is a system like this worth in the field against a "swarm" of small semi-autonomous drones? I'm thinking not much. Also, once this system starts slinging lead all over the place trying to take out the inevitable multiple threat scenario, what sort of collateral damage can be expected? Not many theaters of operation of this type of system are out in the middle of nowhere. In theory they are going to be deployed to protect something! So, wouldn't an electronic warfare type defense be cheaper, safer, easier to deploy and able to deal with multiple types of drone threats? Well, yes. The problem with powerful jamming technology though, is that your own comms, including your own aircraft, will also very likely be screwed while you're operating your jammer. How about this: A pair of RF receivers, separated by a hundred yards or so, scanning for drone signals. Even scrambled or encrypted signals can be identified since there will be a control signal coming from the drone operators and a video signal from the drone back to the operators. Recognition of the patterns, aided by computers, is all that is required. The defense system will not need to decode either signal, just recognize their presence. Since the receivers are separated the defense system can also detect and map their locations. Once the signals are detected the defense system creates an "echo" by rebroadcasting identical signals on their respective discrete frequencies in the direction of the threat. This leaves all other frequencies open and usable. The echo signal though, is broadcast a few seconds out of phase. This will instantly overwhelm both the incoming drone control signals and the outgoing video signals. The effect will be that the encrypted signals are "rescrambled" into signals of the same pattern that nobody understands, not the drone, its operator or the defense system. The attacking drone operators have an unusable video signal, and they can no longer control the drone since both systems are now operating on a frequency that is saturated with the defense system echo. The drone(s) then crash and the operators know that the jig is up or at least panic and give themselves away. Of course, the defense system would have to have the capability to scan and broadcast on multiple frequencies and switch frequencies on the fly since the drones and their operators will very likely have the ability to either manually or automatically switch to an alternate. Many drones will switch to an autonomous mode and "go home" in the absence of the operator's signal but that would not kick in since the signal doesn't go away, it just gets corrupted by the defense system. If the operator attempts to manually switch the drone to an autonomous mode, the chances of success are low. Once the drone(s) are on the ground and the threat neutralized, the defense system returns to a surveillance mode. Then a field combat force can be deployed to the operator's location to engage/eliminate them or to the drone(s) location to either collect the pieces or just stick around to see who, if anyone, comes looking for them. Also, whatever the defense force consists of are now aware that they are under attack and hopefully take appropriate action. Cleaner, faster, cheaper, more adaptable, safer and, though quieter, perhaps not as much fun as the lead slinging method. And who knows, Raytheon may be able to profit just as much building this one.
Frequency hopping (or frequency agile) radios are becoming common, especially the military, making it very difficult to intercept or jam other signals. Small handheld radios already have this tech, it would be easy to adapt it for remote control of drones.
They could use the US Navy Phalanx CIWS. Wouldn't really need a 20mm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun autocannon against drones, maybe they could scale back there but keep the targeting and control systems.
Not a realistic test. But then the system would probably fail a realistic test. And then NOBODY would get paid. And it's really all about the money. NOT about the actual functionality of the system.
First, those aren't Combat Drones, second, they were Flown right into the Gun Position, in Formation. Yes, that is a "Rigged Demo" but it doesn't necessarily mean it "Won't Work" against larger Drones. In the Confined Terrain of this Test, a Larger, Faster Drone would have been Higher, and still on the two Lanes of Approach down the Ravine. If it came Over the Hillside, that Gun looks like it can be Elevated quite high.
Look for Vids of Drone Action in the Ukraine; you see 10-Foot+ Wingspan Drones flying near 100 Kilometers an Hour. Is this Gun System able to be given Targeting from a Radar Set that covers a larger (say 5 Km.radius) so that the Gunner has a Direction to Point and Scan for Targets? If that is possible, I don't see why this isn't a Useful System. High rate of Fire, Fragmenting Munitions that look to be Fused either for Proximity or Range, on a simple, mobile 5-Ton 6 X 6 Truck.
Only real Oversight I see here is the lack of Stabilizers on the Truck Chassis, to prevent it from Rocking as the Gun is Fired.
Well, thank heavens those evil drones knew they should just hover in place during an attack,
ReplyDeleteWho knows what would have happened if they mapped the terrain and came in all
Higgly piggly at 4” above the ground.
Your pal
Scott.
And not in two neat rows (all at the same altitude) aligned with the line of fire...
ReplyDeleteMy dad had a couple of actual WWII maps they followed across Germany. Being a kid I always thought that Germany was flat like a map.
ReplyDeleteNow react to the single real attacker coming from your 6 after engaging at 12, with decoys at 9, 3, then 9 again, etc.
ReplyDeleteHitting all 8 targets flying in rows is cool but I didn't see any gross mount movement..
Everyone's a critic. Must be old guys.
ReplyDeleteYour message is critical too.
DeleteEverybody except pussy's know that.
Might have been successful if they'd used my dronecraft carrier with a 100 bird capacity. Pilot the carrier to within a quarter mile of the target then release attack drones. After the mission the birds redock inside the carrier for the ride back to hotel sierra.
ReplyDeleteThis would totally RULE at duck hunting……..
ReplyDeleteRheinmatall…making cool shit for well over a century.
ReplyDeleteKlaus
at that, the straight-line FG42 paratroop rifle has always interested me.
DeleteDrone tech is evolving so quickly that dropping a bunch of $$ on a system designed for any one or at best, a limited type of drone threat (i.e., low and slow) seems unwise. But then again, the US Military has very rarely had a problem with that nonsense in the past, so this sort of boondoggle is unsurprising.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a system like this worth in the field against a "swarm" of small semi-autonomous drones? I'm thinking not much. Also, once this system starts slinging lead all over the place trying to take out the inevitable multiple threat scenario, what sort of collateral damage can be expected? Not many theaters of operation of this type of system are out in the middle of nowhere. In theory they are going to be deployed to protect something!
So, wouldn't an electronic warfare type defense be cheaper, safer, easier to deploy and able to deal with multiple types of drone threats? Well, yes. The problem with powerful jamming technology though, is that your own comms, including your own aircraft, will also very likely be screwed while you're operating your jammer.
How about this:
A pair of RF receivers, separated by a hundred yards or so, scanning for drone signals. Even scrambled or encrypted signals can be identified since there will be a control signal coming from the drone operators and a video signal from the drone back to the operators. Recognition of the patterns, aided by computers, is all that is required. The defense system will not need to decode either signal, just recognize their presence. Since the receivers are separated the defense system can also detect and map their locations.
Once the signals are detected the defense system creates an "echo" by rebroadcasting identical signals on their respective discrete frequencies in the direction of the threat. This leaves all other frequencies open and usable. The echo signal though, is broadcast a few seconds out of phase. This will instantly overwhelm both the incoming drone control signals and the outgoing video signals. The effect will be that the encrypted signals are "rescrambled" into signals of the same pattern that nobody understands, not the drone, its operator or the defense system.
The attacking drone operators have an unusable video signal, and they can no longer control the drone since both systems are now operating on a frequency that is saturated with the defense system echo. The drone(s) then crash and the operators know that the jig is up or at least panic and give themselves away.
Of course, the defense system would have to have the capability to scan and broadcast on multiple frequencies and switch frequencies on the fly since the drones and their operators will very likely have the ability to either manually or automatically switch to an alternate.
Many drones will switch to an autonomous mode and "go home" in the absence of the operator's signal but that would not kick in since the signal doesn't go away, it just gets corrupted by the defense system. If the operator attempts to manually switch the drone to an autonomous mode, the chances of success are low.
Once the drone(s) are on the ground and the threat neutralized, the defense system returns to a surveillance mode. Then a field combat force can be deployed to the operator's location to engage/eliminate them or to the drone(s) location to either collect the pieces or just stick around to see who, if anyone, comes looking for them.
Also, whatever the defense force consists of are now aware that they are under attack and hopefully take appropriate action.
Cleaner, faster, cheaper, more adaptable, safer and, though quieter, perhaps not as much fun as the lead slinging method. And who knows, Raytheon may be able to profit just as much building this one.
Frequency hopping (or frequency agile) radios are becoming common, especially the military, making it very difficult to intercept or jam other signals. Small handheld radios already have this tech, it would be easy to adapt it for remote control of drones.
DeleteKeep in mind that this is what is being released to the public.
ReplyDeleteWhat abilities are they keeping secret ?
They could use the US Navy Phalanx CIWS. Wouldn't really need a 20mm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun autocannon against drones, maybe they could scale back there but keep the targeting and control systems.
ReplyDeleteNot a realistic test. But then the system would probably fail a realistic test. And then NOBODY would get paid. And it's really all about the money. NOT about the actual functionality of the system.
ReplyDeleteGerman engineering. Gone...without cheap energy.
ReplyDeleteAn EMP defense?
ReplyDeleteEvil Franklin
ReplyDeleteFirst, those aren't Combat Drones, second, they were Flown right into the Gun Position, in Formation.
Yes, that is a "Rigged Demo" but it doesn't necessarily mean it "Won't Work" against larger Drones. In the Confined Terrain of this Test, a Larger, Faster Drone would have been Higher, and still on the two Lanes of Approach down the Ravine. If it came Over the Hillside, that Gun looks like it can be Elevated quite high.
Look for Vids of Drone Action in the Ukraine; you see 10-Foot+ Wingspan Drones flying near 100 Kilometers an Hour. Is this Gun System able to be given Targeting from a Radar Set that covers a larger (say 5 Km.radius) so that the Gunner has a Direction to Point and Scan for Targets? If that is possible, I don't see why this isn't a Useful System. High rate of Fire, Fragmenting Munitions that look to be Fused either for Proximity or Range, on a simple, mobile 5-Ton 6 X 6 Truck.
Only real Oversight I see here is the lack of Stabilizers on the Truck Chassis, to prevent it from Rocking as the Gun is Fired.
I saw a video of this a couple months ago. I think it was an Israeli company.
ReplyDelete