Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Anti-UAV missile
w34p0n2m4n    9/6/2007 12:57:06 AM
It seems like there are going to be a lot of UAVs flying around the battle fields of the future. Most of them are going to be relatively small, unarmed, and capable of completely ruining your carefully laid plans. So it makes sense that 20 years from now, when our enemies are using UAVs against us, to develop some sort of counter-UAV weaponry. The most entertaining idea I can think of is a small (bottle rocket sized) anti-air missile. The main problem I can think of is how to track and lock-on to a UAV. They don't put out much heat. Maybe the missile could home in on their radio link to their operator. A UAV isn't much good if it can't transmit.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Treadgar       9/6/2007 9:16:58 AM
Do you mean to DF the radio transmitter onboard the UAV? I think you're right that twenty years from now you might see something like a smart grenade or small missile (whatever you want to call it) that might be man portable. One limitation would be present in terms of how much propellant such a system would have. If I were writing a novel with gadgets like these I might say something like the first generation systems were problematic, just like the earliest air-to-air missiles in Vietnam. They get better with time. With time you might also get counter measures to throw off the little sensors built into the little suckers. There was a Vernor Vinge novel with something like this, this guy had small missiles and anitmissiles, and counter measures against small seeker missiles. Maybe your anit-UAV greneade could be set to go off when the radio transmitter is detected nearby and you could kill the UAV with fragmentation (as long as the shooter isn't too close). Jamming might be a possiblitly, but maybe hard to do with frequency agile systems. I'm just thinking brain storming out loud here, it will be interesting to see what others think. I wonder if you could design some type of acoustical tracking system within this 20 year time frame?

Treadgar 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/6/2007 11:47:55 AM
UAVs are completely withing the capabilities of any nation right now. Small battlefield UAVs are being built and used in Iraq with mail order parts for a few thousand dollars. Any future war between nations is going to feature UAVs on both sides and it seems to me that equipping forces with weapons capable of detecting and destroying them should be a priority. Also consider UGV (unmand ground vehicles) and unattended ground sensors.
Detection is the tough part. There are plenty of ways to detect and destroy UAVs. Modern radars are able to detect much smaller targets. However detecting and engaging UGVs especially when stationary is more challenging, and it seems to me that detecting unattended ground sensors would be nearly impossible except using direction finding techniques. If some other method could be developed it would be beneficial and might also be able to be applied to detecting unburied enemy mines.
 
As to weapons, at low to medium altitudes and for devices on the ground, I think the best weapon would be a 57mm automatic cannon firing precision guided rounds. This weapon would also be extremely useful for support against infantry with airbursting munitions, and could be used to provide defense against incomming artillery, missiles and rockets as well, and would be a potent weapon against any airborne target. Such weapons are currently being developed as defensive weapons for ships and inst. I'd say go with the Tank Support Vehicle (aka BMP-T) concept and pair conventional tanks with these vehicles at least in cavalry and reconnaisanse units. The MBT could use its heavy cannon to destroy other MBTs while the TSV would be better equipped to fight infantry and light vehicles for which a full caliber gun is overkill and would waste the limited ammunition carried by the MBT.
 
Units equipped with such weapons would act as a screening force to clear enemy reconnaisance assets, sensors, and infantry antitank teams. Against a force capable of contesting US/Allied air superiority they could serve as an anti aircraft screen as well.
 
Quote    Reply

w34p0n2m4n       9/7/2007 12:59:07 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of something individual soldiers could carry.  Like a Barbie sized MANPAD.
 
On the other hand, what if you built an air superiority UAV?  Like a tiny F-22 that would secure a platoon's "personal bubble."  It would be the entire range of air force evolution but on a smaller scale. 
 
First, the reconaissence UAVs would overfly the squad and report back on their position.  Then someone would put a pistol on their UAV so that they could fly at another UAV and use the camer to aim and shoot it down.  Next, the armed mini-UAVs would be deployed to prevent the camera UAVs from seeing the squad at all; denying them the air space.  Then someone might develop a way to reliably track mini-UAVs so that they could shoot down a squad's mini-air cover and send in their own UAVs.  Then the same tech would be used to make the airspace over the squad un-penetratable.  Then someone would develop air-to-ground-mini-missiles which target the humans in the squad and can be deployed outside of the mini-SAMs range.  Then they would deploy a mini-AWACS which would coordinate the mini-UAV fighters and send them out to shoot down the enemy's UAVs before they can get in range to shoot at the squad.  Then the squad guys would be like "Hey, why can't we use the UAVs to shoot at the enemy like they're shooting at us?" and they'd request CAS from the UAVs.  Then there would be mini-A-10s and all sorts of craziness.
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       9/7/2007 4:04:04 AM
w34p0n2m4n the idea of anti-UAV or UAV fighter/interceptors was one I thought of as well. This is what happened during WWI, and your train of thought tells me you are aware of this. First came the scout planes to fly over enemy lines and see what was happening. To stop this you saw guns going up in other scout aricraft, and finally there came the creation of the pursuit or fighter aircraft. This scenario could certainly be replicated somewhat in the future. I'm not sure you'd have a "personalized bubble" consistantly at the platoon level, but you might have special support units operating over the combat zones. The Germans had their elite flying circus type units that moved around being used as an aerial mike force or hatchet team. Maybe it starts out at the platoon level, but things start to get more specialized. The reason I say this is because you might have infantry personel spending too much time working the UAVs. This means the platoon is going to be pressured to be a larger unit, so it makes more sense to me to have specialized units that will be attached and detached where they're needed. Just my opinion, there are all kinds of ways this can be orgainized, and the crucible of combat will decide which ones work best.

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/7/2007 4:16:05 AM
From the original post it appears that the targets are mini and micro class UAV, say the Dragoneye or smaller. 
 
The question as I see it is at what distance do we NEED to take them out to keep them from accomplishing their purpose?  Can anyone tell us how close one of these things needs to be to spot dismounted infantry or identify a vehicle?
 
For infantry, if the UAV need to be within 50m to 100m, a shotgun with goose or duck loads might do the trick.  Airburst grenades should be effective to 200m or 300m, but will need some kind of computing sight to calculate how much to lead the target.  Beyond 300m it take a manpad class weapon, probably with some kind of command guidance like the Starstreak or RBS-70.
 
For vehicles the best solution may be a high powered microwave (HPM) weapon to fry the electronics.  Small UAV's can not mount effective shielding.
 
Until that is developed, a 30mm autocannon with AHEAD munitions would be a good alternative.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/7/2007 4:16:33 AM
From the original post it appears that the targets are mini and micro class UAV, say the Dragoneye or smaller. 
 
The question as I see it is at what distance do we NEED to take them out to keep them from accomplishing their purpose?  Can anyone tell us how close one of these things needs to be to spot dismounted infantry or identify a vehicle?
 
For infantry, if the UAV need to be within 50m to 100m, a shotgun with goose or duck loads might do the trick.  Airburst grenades should be effective to 200m or 300m, but will need some kind of computing sight to calculate how much to lead the target.  Beyond 300m it take a manpad class weapon, probably with some kind of command guidance like the Starstreak or RBS-70.
 
For vehicles the best solution may be a high powered microwave (HPM) weapon to fry the electronics.  Small UAV's can not mount effective shielding.
 
Until that is developed, a 30mm autocannon with AHEAD munitions would be a good alternative.
 
Quote    Reply

w34p0n2m4n       9/9/2007 8:56:10 PM
Is there any way to track an aricraft by the disturbance it generates in the air it moves through?
 
Maybe not with a single sensor, but what if you had multiple sensors?
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       9/11/2007 10:49:30 AM
Is there anyway to track an aircraft by the wake it makes in the atmosphere? I can't say for sure, but I read somewhere that the Australians were developing something like this back in the 80s or maybe the 90s. I'd say it's not impossible. Someone else certainly knows more about this than me.

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter2K       10/14/2007 5:51:35 PM
The problem with your possit is that the means to shoot down the RPV comes many decades before the means to make the RPV. Thus we have now and more in the future the means to down any RPV available to day. The only possable solution is to transfer the technology from RPV to "Autominus Combat Vehicle" That does not require comunication with the remote pilot to opperate. IE Artificial intelegence on board and the weapons to make it effective, should it choose to attack.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       10/15/2007 10:49:15 AM
Yes we have the technology to shoot down UAVs, and have had it for years. However, that technology is not widely deployed. US forces don't deploy with any widely deployed AD except stingers which probably would not even be able to track most micro UAVs with electric engines, maybe not even the ones with IC engines. Yes we have the technology to say, mount a vulcan on a M-113, but those weapons haven't been deployed for years. Most other ainti-aircraft gun systems were designed to fight aircraft and hence to provide a large umbrella from the division level rather than being deployed at the small unit level where micro-UAVs need to be engaged.
 
What I'd propose is mounting 35mm Millenium Guns with firing either AHEAD munitions on a Bradley or similar armored chassis and using them at the small unit level to provide defense against not only UAVS but to shoot down incomming artillery, rockets and missiles.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics