Defense against UAV's

Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
[snip]
: But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
: relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.
:no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its
rice).

And its capabilities.
you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator.

:You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a
:reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to
:be cautious and stay afar

And you won't do that on the cheap.
Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much
coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not
to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and
much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs
might work well enough.

come close to one drone and you might be
:fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong
:for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot
:down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work
:sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the
:drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic
:maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots
r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's
:seaker).

Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for
them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty
and cheap solutions'.
Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive.
Plastic/wood/metal is cheap.
Carrying missiles is not expensive. The missile itself might be
expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need
that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...)

: If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
: all, life is cheap in places like Iran.
:Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And
:manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do.

And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about.
If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or
similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised.

There are essentially three UAV regimes:

1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of
wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and
slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a
small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop
(frequently shrouded internal to the body).

2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They
mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more
expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but
probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate
air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive).
For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar.
You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not
give you range/damaging payload).
Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing
the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors,
especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only.

3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the
Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive.
And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them.

You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget.
You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1)
budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country
with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production. (How many
of Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their
unit price if you make a thousand of them?)


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : wrote:
:[snip]
: : But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
: : relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.
: :no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its
: rice).
:
: And its capabilities.
:
:you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator.

You do if you plan on carrying and launching missiles.

: :You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a
: :reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to
: :be cautious and stay afar
:
: And you won't do that on the cheap.
:
:Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much
:coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not
:to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and
:much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs
:might work well enough.

You're real big on using words like 'might' and 'may'. How many
weapon systems have you been involved in the design of?

: come close to one drone and you might be
: :fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong
: :for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot
: :down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work
: :sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the
: :drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic
: :maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots
: r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's
: :seaker).
:
: Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for
: them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty
: and cheap solutions'.
:
:Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive.
:Plastic/wood/metal is cheap.

Forming into actual weapons systems is not.

:Carrying missiles is not expensive.

But shooting them is.

:The missile itself might be
:expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need
:that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...)

But building them into a vehicle that can shoot them with any prayer
of hitting anything is.

: : If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
: : all, life is cheap in places like Iran.
: :Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And
: :manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do.
:
: And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about.
:
:If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or
:similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised.

And you have how much experience putting together systems that
actually work and do things?

: There are essentially three UAV regimes:
:
: 1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of
: wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and
: slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a
: small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop
: (frequently shrouded internal to the body).
:
: 2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They
: mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more
: expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but
: probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate
: air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive).
:
:For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar.
:You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not
:give you range/damaging payload).

Uh, is that supposed to make sense?

:Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing
:the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors,
:especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only.

You really haven't a clue.

: 3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the
: Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive.
:
:And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them.

And so they don't get the capabilities you want to claim for your
'cheap' system. It won't be shooting at anyone.

: You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget.
:You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1)
:budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country
:with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production.

But you can't shoot anyone with that 1) sensor suite.

How many
f Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their
:unit price if you make a thousand of them?)

Not much.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn