I have for some time thought that swarming UAV’s using off the shelf technology offers a glimpse of a transformative capability that we have very little defence against, a previous post looked at how low cost commercially available UAV’s had provided invaluable intelligence and targeting information for Libyan rebel forces.
Technology moves on, these three videos shows the rapid pace of development and whilst it is a stretch to look at the clever acrobatics on display here and immediately see a militarily useful system it is something we should be paying attention to, simply because it is disruptive and blasting CAMM and Starstreak at a swarm of weaponised UAV’s has only as much life as it takes to run out of missiles.
Our enemies do not need to play by the same rules as us, cluster munitions or chemical weapons with a simple fuse or remote detonation system could cause disproportionate losses. Go up a notch and consider what would happen if a couple of hundreds of these were flown over an armoured formation, each one equipped with an explosively formed munition.
Consider the cost differential as well.
It doesn’t even need to be weaponised either, a simple camera and frequency hopping transmitter provides the kind of real-time intelligence that has usually been the sole preserve of nation states militaries.
Lift performance might be limited to showing off and not much more, but this will change, and the really clever stuff embedded in the control systems will equally move fast.
Are we ready?
The trouble with buying such a CIWS system is that it would divert money from other areas. We must be careful not to spend too much on self protection because at the end of the day we are there to win not to hide. You could mount such a system on AFVs perhaps and double it up as an anti-infantry weapon as well. I don’t know how hard it would be for such a system to work and distinguish these things from everything else flying through the air.
Obviously Afghan style campaigns are a bit different.
I would say that the advantage of these things is their size, cheapness and ability to swarm. The tougher the defences against them, the bigger, heavier and more expensive these things get until its back to using Javelin cost weapons against blokes.
I think there might be a window for them perhaps, but I daresay they’d be easier to counter than they would be to continue being light, small, cheap to overcome the defences.
Er…Batteries Not Included? You showing your age Phil? :P
HK UAVs to kill UAVs. Then Anti-HK UAVs to kill the HK UAVs that kill UAVs. Then Anti-anti-HK UAVs to kill the anti-HK UAVs that kill the HK UAVs that kill the UAVs.
Sounds familiar. :)
But yes, these will be a fair problem if they are used in a battlefield, hard to hit a palm sized target with a single round 5.56 or 7.62. Maybe shotguns with buckshot?
Defence wise, wire mesh or cloth netting over windows could help keep small flying pests at bay.
Commentators were mentioning earlier that they could be disrupted by electronic warfare methods. Then sureley if that would happen to us then we could do the same against an asymmetric enemy. But then again would we have that capability in the area at that specific time to deal with the threat.
Would a smaller CIWS mount with say a minigun type of weapon system be suffeicent in countering this?
The obvious defence is to design our own hunter killer devices.
Then we can have a Batteries Not Included battle.
Difficult to counter at the moment. Perhaps we need to issue fly swatters.
I think essentially they can be thought of as self guiding grenades.
Phil, massive paradigm changes are not on a daily basis :) Thank God. Think of our defence spending if we had to get new equipment every day. It’s not too different from what we use currently, but it does open up some new tactics and usages, like supression of an enemy. If he knew poking his head out would attract the attention of a buzzbomb, it’s strong incentive for him to keep low, allowing freedom of movement to your forces. In theory. In practice, we’ll have to wait and see.
TD, yes, it’s a possible terrorist risk. However, just because terrorists might use it doesn’t mean we can’t too. Do unto others what others would like to do unto you. :)
When I posted this it wasn’t a suggestion of how we could use but how an asymmetric enemy, not bound by the same rules as us, could exploit this commercially available technology, applying a strength against our weakness.
Sub 500 feet do we really have total control of the air and if we do, against what numbers.
Don’t forget these have a minuscule emission signature if operated autonomously, low noise, minimal IR, very small physically
Difficult to counter
Someone else mentioned using them for air defence. Unless I misunderstand.
These things are now starting to sound more like self propelled cluster munitions. Or tiny persistent missiles. They just dont seem massively different from what we used already.
Phil, you’re correct, the time for UAVs to tackle high performance jets is still way off, but this is a totally different battlespace than air superiority. These things are almost palm or double palm sized, used below tree top level. Fighters are going to find them impossible to target. Inversely, they can forget about going after MiGs, will never work.
Right tool for right job. These are flying AP mines, using them against aircraft is… not wise. After all, you don’t use SAMs against MBTs often do you?
How do these drones catch a powerful aircraft? The plane can climb faster, higher and harder than these little things. Doesn’t matter how many there are if the plane streaks into the stratosphere or just fucks off.
Phil
The drones are ground attack platforms that are too numerous for our aircraft to deal with.
13 missiles on a Typhoon
4 on an F35
Not much use if 200 Fire Shadow type things are launched
How are these mini drones going to have the energy to take out the fighters? Seems to me the easiest way to defeat them is to go high, then they simply turn into missiles with exactly the same problems. Or go very low and fast so they don’t have time to react, again exactly the same problem as missiles have now.
They just seem like missiles and the same concepts / counter measures apply.
Clue’s in the name! Light Anti-Tank Weapon / Light Anti Structure.
Methinks the advantage of the LASM/LAW was / is that it is a compact weapon, easy to man-pack.
SO, you just seen us come up with part one of that scenario. Part 2 was the part about skeet shooting ;)
Dom, it’s more favoured because it’s more available, cheaper, and you only need to ship a rocket to rearm, not the whole launcher.
Put it this way. If you need to fire 2 shots, you’ll need 1x RPG, 2x Rockets. Or 2x LAW (or LASM or what you kids call it nowadays… what was wrong with LAW anyhow?)
Somewhat related:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/screamers.html
So far I’ve not seen ANYONE with the same conclusion about air defence, which makes me wonder whether I’m wrong or a genius. Odds are it’s the former. Can’t figure out why, though – maybe ’cause it’s not the latter? ;)
Observer
I think he means the Light Anti Structure Munition, basicaly a revamped 66mm rocket.
Personaly I never understood why the RPG is favoured over western rockets, beyond perhaps availability.
A quick check on weights means you need 15 shots before the RPG is lighter.
wf, I suspect it will be like what Phil said, taken as an acceptable risk in the field.
Advantage to RPGs would be remote control. RPGs are direct fire/dumb fire. Remote bombs would be controlled and able to chase it’s target down. Not to mention supression through intimidating presence.
Not familiar with that one…
Help files? :)
LASMs! Much better.
ChrisM said: “In Afghanistan they were using £60K+ Javelin rounds to hit single guys. Even allowing for the MOD’s talent to desimplify and cost inflate how many MUAVHGs could you get for that price. And how many (and how big a battery) could you get in the same weight?”
Or just buy RPGs.
For cost reasons, I would think we can rule out guided missiles: even a carrier with submunitions would be fairly expensive. Barring counter swarms of suicide-bots, I suspect some form of long range canister or time fuze, allied with a rapid firing gun. New ammo type for 40mm perhaps?
I’d rather take my chances with the 155mm, at least you can hear it.
Missiles ripple firing is a classic example of spending money on a solution that really should just be an acceptable battlefield risk and investing the money at the pointy end. At the end of the day, soldiers are at a big risk and can expect death or injury, and I firmly believe that there would be less death and injury if we can generate more nastiness at the sharp end instead of diverting money into self-protection measures to a twisted degree.
Fine for Afghan, since every death is a victory for the enemy and it’s how the campaign goes; but for a general Iraq 2003 style confrontation you need things that go bang, not things that might stop some things that go bang but can’t be everywhere but swallowed a shit load of money that could have bought you the engineer vehicles to dig a good trench.
Yup, multi round fire missions are best dealt with by missile based anti-missile systems than can ripple fire, though cost wise, it’s a terrible losing proposition.
It’s not the piddly little 81mms I’m worried about though. It’s the scary 155mms and 227mms or baby ballistic missiles.
C-RAM is really for Iraq / Afghan models. A brace or two of rounds and then they run away. It’s not going to be able to deal with a barrage or three 81mm firing 5 for effect and I doubt it ever will be. You just have to take your chances and dig in.
Dom. What level is motar fire ordered at? What level is deploying a hand grenade at?
And frankly, I don’t see the viablity of C-RAM , aka “Phalanx stuck on land”
Not really sure I see the “new” threat.
Things like C-RAM can already be overloaded by half a dozen mortars fireing in a co-ordinated fashion.
If this really any different?
Messed up last post, sorry, it’s late.
IDF is using the Searcher, next generation is the Hermes.
solomon, the IAI are using the Searcher. Next gen is the Skyblade.
You notice all your “failures” are viewed from only one country? The US is having some UAV problems because they’re being used beyond what they were originally planned for, recon vs heavy combat.
We, on the other hand, are closely tied with Israel, and they have a tighter focus and better doctrine with regards to UAV usage.
Long story short? You using UAVs in aerial combat, you’re doing it wrong.
wow.
people are really excited about UAVs without looking at the track record for the aircraft or the environments that they’ve operated in.
*the USAF first used primitive UAVs (called RPVs) during the Vietnam war. they were used as decoys. not successful.
*planning for WW3 involved using UAVs as decoys. it was determined that they were not survivable in high threat areas.
*Israel used UAVs to act as bait for Syrian anti air defense …successful but the loss rate was high. it was acceptable because they were inexpensive and therefore disposable.
*Gulf War 2. UAVs used against Sadaams air arm but only after the anti air had been rolled back…UAVs used by the CIA in Afghanistan because they lacked attack aircraft and did not want to risk losing a pilot….because they were cheap and inexpensive loses were tolerable.
*beast of whatever. lost in Iran. reported to be stealth but loss is at the very least embarrassing.
*Global Hawks. loss rate has been alarming. was once touted as the replacement for the U2. that has been reversed and the Global Hawk continues in US service only with the US Navy in the BAMS program. serious doubt remains on the efficacy of that program due to problems with persistent flight over water and unpredictable weather.
long story short. UAVs are the latest great thing. energy weapons are being developed that will render them dead meat to manned fighters. speaking of which, even currently against a dedicated, determined and semi-knowledgeable foe they are DEAD MEAT.
the leaders in this field are all pulling back and heading in different directions. want proof? what is the Israeli’s next great UAV?
i can’t find that. i take it to mean that UAVs currently are an evolutionary dead end when it comes to aerial combat.
I always suggest a bit of research, eg DCDC Note 2/11, UK approach to UAS. Informed discussion is alweays better.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F9335CB2-73FC-4761-A428-DB7DF4BEC02C/0/20110505JDN_211_UAS_v2U.pdf
A mine of interesting information and a insight into current thinking. Persistant not swarm is obviously the way to go.
Aussie, look under Israeli use of UAVs. They were very successful in using UAVs as beaters for air defence radar.
Brian, I never said anything about deploying those in swarms. As for the control system, my country’s army is already issuing Toughbook laptops for UAV control and recon, no reason why you can’t tack on a flying grenade as a UAV, though there is still the “one at a time” limit. Don’t see it as a problem though, how many frags do you want out at any one time anyhow?
What about a UAV based on the U-2?
Lets not expect too much from UAU’s too soon.
So far most UAV successes have been in permissive environments. The only example of UAV’s in a non permissive environment I an aware of was in Georgia, and the Russian fighters won.
The problem with UAV’s are:
if thay are radio controlled they are vulnerable to jamming and line of sight issues;
If they are (semi?)indepentant, they really can only do what the are programmed to do as we not anywhere close to artificial intellegence. If we were we may really have to worry about SkyNet!
Defence industry is clearly salivating at the prospect of selling heaps of UAV to the world’s defence forces but the biggest bucket of cold water I have seen recently was Pannetta’s statement last week that he planned to can Global Hawk Block 30 and 40’s because they we just as expensive to operate as the U-2!
Almost expendable eyes in the sky are fine, deploy em by the bucket load, but anything more complicated are cleary requiring of a cost benefit analysis.
@ mr.fred – “I can see birdshot and skeet shooting attaining greater use in military training.” – I’ve heard teals that officers and groundkeepers during the first world war where valued for just that reason, the trench mortars, etc, being slow enough to shot with a shotgun.
I also think that with the increase of urban combat as well as non-lethal scenarios that the shotgun will become very important with our forces.
A remotely operated UAV grenade would no doubt be useful; but once you’ve tested and perfected the operation towards the reliability required for a killing machine, and secured the control link, and ruggedized the system for battlefield and clumsy squadie use, then the cost will have grown well beyond that of a high-street purchased remote-control model with a mini cam.
The small UAVs already in use don’t come cheap, I don’t see why a UAV hand grenade concept would be any cheaper.
Hi, Observer. If you wanted the soft touch of a few grams of explosives in an anti-personnel UAV, would not throwing a swarm of them negate that limited effect? To me, a swarm of small UAVs suggests some degree of independent target identification too – you don’t want to pilot them all; we have weapons now that lock onto a vehicle’s profile or IR signature, but it would be quite a controversial step to have UAVs independently lock onto human targets if there were no way of determining the validity of that target.
I can see birdshot and skeet shooting attaining greater use in military training.
The micro UAV hand grenade is a top idea!
In Afghanistan they were using £60K+ Javelin rounds to hit single guys. Even allowing for the MOD’s talent to desimplify and cost inflate how many MUAVHGs could you get for that price. And how many (and how big a battery) could you get in the same weight?
It would be a seriously scary weapon for Mr Taliban – a hand grenade that could hunt him down, follow him around corners, come in through any open doors or windows, even wait a few minutes for him to pop out again.
To go even further…a canister round on a rocket/bomb – one repeater unit and a little squadron of the things to hunt down AQ in their Pakistan houses without the big bang issue.
Of course eventually one wouldnt self destruct, a kid would play with it….and you have the pinko media tearing you a new one…
Brian, cameras nowadays are incredibly light, just look at any handphone, and those shaped charges are for anti-armour usage. I suspect a vid camera drone with a 80g frag charge has a viable development path as a remote controlled flying hand grenade.
A step closer to replacing the Red Arrows with robots? Looks very cool, but I’m struggling to see whether this demonstrates any new ability regarding the understanding of swarm behaviour; or with location references placed about the room, any new ability regarding the control of such swarms.
It’s also not clear what a swarm of this type and size of little ‘bot could be used for in the near future. A quick look on the net tells me that the free-falling laser and IR seeking skeets from the BLU-108 cluster sub-munition weigh in at 3.4kg, of which 2.2kg represents the explosively formed projectile. That’s about the weight of a Desert Hawk for something that just falls rather than flies, and lives for just 8 seconds. A useful sensor and weapon load, and operational range would seem to scale up the size rather quickly – at least with today’s tech.
Back in 2002 I saw a demo put on by an Australian company (working with one of the Ozzie universities, can’t recall which) in which they put the swarm “brains” into whatever was the state of the art 10 foot wingspan UAV back then. Their idea was to designate one as the “master UAV” and the others then conformed to it. Programme the master UAV to fly a certain profile, and the others all followed along at some pre-configured separation (there was a limit – about 200 metres I recall). It could be either line astern or line abreast. Those UAVs could fly in reasonably poor weather, and had enough lift for I think about 20kgs.
That was back in 2002. I shudder to think what they could do now.
Also a useful choice for guarding airbases or other large areas (in conduction with people). Flying perimeter patrols, getting a Go-Pro camera view onto any sensor that has tripped, etc.
Anyway, those mini-quadrotor UAVs doing the figure of eight without bumping into each, which is a sure candidate to replace the Purple Helmets or whatever the R SIGNALS call their motorcycle display team. ;)
Jed, I see these as more suitable for anti-personnel use.
As for the conservative approaches you mentioned, this one can cause a serious problem. It’s small size. Hell, plant one in vegetation and it can be an ad hoc bouncing betty.
Not sure if it can punch through armour, I doubt it, but AMS won’t fire on it, anti-missile systems track on high speed, this one’s too slow to trigger AMS. OTOH, I doubt it can carry a serious anti-armour payload. It however, is an infantryman’s nightmare.
Calm down, it’s not Skynet’s day yet !!
:-)
TD said: “Go up a notch and consider what would happen if a couple of hundred of these were flew over an armoured formation, each one equipped with an explosively formed munition.”
but therein lies all the problems. Why do they need to “swarm” in formation to do that ? So “they” (the faceless rule ignoring opfor) might be able to put a EFF warhead on a commercially available rotary mini-uav, what is the main sensor going to be ? Is it to be autonomous (these things are not clever enough yet) or radio controlled (jam it). Wont the active protection system designed to protect against ATGW be developed to disrupt the EFF and fire upwards ? (bad example, but measure begets countermeasure) ??
Information Dissemination has an article on this too – but Navies have had to face “swarms” for hundreds of years – a regimental Backfire attack with AS4’s would have provided a large mass of missiles, not talking to each other or manouvering together etc, but so what ? I fail to see what lots of manouvering small weapons can achieve that more “conservative” approaches (high subsonic, supersonic, passive homing, sea skimming etc) cannot.
I don’t discount your comments about control systems development moving quickly, but just fail to see this as the latest instantly terrible threat of the aysmetric battlefield (how many Toyota pickups are they going to have to drive up into range of blue forces, get the things in the air, send them in the right direction, against a hard blowing wind…. blah blah blah).
Like I said, we are not into Terminator country… yet…..
GJ good idea.
Those videos are both awesome and pants filling at the same time.
Cross with a explosive device and you could see the begining of “smart” grenades…
That could be called a slam dunk (in formation!)
KMel robotics. Interesting. Wonder about their flight endurance. And if these guys are interested in a job :)
TD, I know for a fact that my country’s DSTA is driving a major push for micro-UAVs to be made available at the section leader level. Imagine the situational awareness that a whole battleline of UAV equiped sections can have. Combine with long range motars, there is the potential for decimating enemies without them even getting a glimpse of you. Park your infantry in the reverse slope of a hill and watch the fun on laptop.