DRONES Part Three: Air Force Development, by GuerrillaLogistician
Reference – D3
By GuerrillaLogistician
@glogistician on X.com
A drone for all tasks
We’re going to work a little backwards with the drones to understand what came first after the reconnaissance drone. While flying a bomb into an area wasn’t unique at the start of the war, the drones’ survivability was important because drone production wasn’t yet as effective as it is today. As the cottage industry began, multiple techniques for dropping bombs were developed, along with the technologies and software used in these light Mavic drones. Because of their inability to lift much weight, the Mavic was being engineered to carry small payloads and small anti-personnel grenades. This meant that most of the time, these bombs were being dropped on pure guesswork. As time progressed, though, the skills of the drone operators got better, and the bombs got far more deadly, which helped push more development in the drones beyond being a harassing style of attack. As both sides upgraded their technology and refined their techniques, purpose-built bombing drones emerged with the Ukrainians charging ahead at breakneck speed, not restricted by government oversight like the Russians.
Bombers
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1933561514507841665?s=20
Mavic bomber test
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1924187517450117383?s=20
Bomber drone with modified grenades
As designs improved and some moved from Mavic drones into the world of custom designs, progress accelerated toward task-specific drones. Much like weapons platforms have different rounds for different tasks, these drones have become more sophisticated but are also sometimes temperamental. There seems to be a split between Russia and Ukraine here. Russia is focusing on companies making these purpose-built drones, with mixed success but uniform capabilities. Ukraine, on the other hand, is developing and expanding its cottage industry more rapidly. Many videos have been posted by people working in small shops in Ukraine who are building and testing drones. While the Russians have done similar things, they seem more focused on the military-industrial side for obvious reasons. The nimble nature of Ukrainian production allows them to develop faster than a corporation or government could. This enables Ukraine to develop more specialized systems for specific targets, such as bunker-busting drones and net-cutting drones.
Still, I assume this comes at the cost of reliability at times. That reliability issue may or may not be much of an issue for them, but it most likely stems from scarce resources and the tons of requests for funds to produce drones we see on sites like x.com. The best part of these bombers is that they can be quickly flown back, reloaded with a fresh battery, and reloaded with fresh ammo without losing the drone. This means more loiter time and fewer coverage gaps. What I do wonder is how the airframes are holding up overall, and how long the required engine replacement will take, etc. Many of these hobby-sized drones weren’t meant for sustained operations, and I suspect that is why a lot of these bombers aren’t seen more often. There are, however, machines with thousands of hours on the industrial/commercial side, and these larger drones require less maintenance.
https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1981029384262664553?s=20
Bomber attacking a moving target.
Kamikaze Drones
https://x.com/AmericanVatnik/status/1989857038361338361?s=20
Small Kamikaze Drone moving into a building.
The initial use of kamikaze drones began as drone systems proliferated. Many of these drones were trying to pack on as many explosives as possible on relatively light frames like the Mavic 3. They were attempting to create something that would defeat many armor systems and heavier weapons, such as artillery, with a single shot, where hand grenades wouldn’t have done enough damage to affect these systems significantly. As larger drones were developed, even larger bombers were made. More drones were produced, and kamikaze drones became more prevalent, not only against hardened targets and critical weapon systems, but also against buildings. I believe a lot of the design and procurement began to split into separate tasks, much as the Air Force in World War I began forming bomber units, fighter units, and other operational capabilities. This separation allowed both developers and operators to focus on specific tasks and targets more efficiently, thereby enhancing the drones’ capabilities. Pilots also got more skilled in their individual roles. That said, I will address them in a bit more detail later.
Large Single Use (Anti-tank/Bunker Busters)
https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1929155428505485371?s=20
Large munition anti-tank
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1812913599117205540?s=20
Bunker buster
Destroyed Abrams likely from Russian drone strike.
The anti-tank drones should be an article in their own right. I love tanks and think they are awesome, but absolutely everything is out to kill them. From the highest elevations down, armor is the first thing everyone is trying to defeat due to its direct-fire capabilities. That alone has driven a TON of innovation in protective design. The issue comes down to the fact that the more defensive structures they put on these things, the more obvious they become, just like the initial trenches that were open pits. Currently, the big thing is springy bristles that act like tree branches and catch drones at a distance, making many weapons systems far less effective. Right now, conservatively, Russia has lost around 4000 tanks, and Ukraine has lost 1200.
Abrams with anti-drone netting.
Again, as with all wars, these numbers won’t be proven until after, and with these two combatants, that might never be entirely accurate. Now you armor snobs can tell me I am wrong all day, but with drone systems able to drop or, worse, place explosives on weak areas, it seems the tank world is kind of on the down slope of effectiveness. We also see bunkers protected similarly, with fences, brush, and other setups creating that standoff protection, just as they have tried with the tanks. With that said, both sides are adding larger explosives to larger drones to effect kills on these bunkers and protected tanks. It may not be a large brick of explosives, but purpose-built shape charges designed to hit the tank from the top or blow the opening of a bunker system, trapping the occupants. Some larger munition drones have brought white phosphorous into trench systems.
Russian anti-drone system called dandelions, which are made from wire rope
Ukrainian Stryker with similar protection
The HUK (Hunter Killer)
https://x.com/AmericanVatnik/status/1989857038361338361?s=20
HUK in action
While tanks have large armor-piercing munitions, the infantry are routinely hunted by Hunter Killers, HUK for short, with significant effect. These HUKs generally have smaller payloads, typically shorter ranges, and are used for close-in CAS attacks rather than carpet bombing. Some of the bomber drones have multiple payloads and can strike groups more easily. Once the troops have moved for cover, though, the smaller, more nimble drones come into play. This allows Recon to track the hiding spots down and engage them by waiting for HUKs. HUKs also come in two formats: wireless and fiber-optic. I differentiate the older Kamikaze and HUK by their designs. Most older-style cameras still had gimballed cameras and were used only once. They weren’t meant to be thrown away but were to meet the needs of the mission. Many of the HUKs have a fixed, or only a tilt-up-and-down, camera built by 3D printers, or simple supplies, and are guided by recon into targets, unlike the older Kamikaze. They are also set up with the fiber optics, most often in a deep penetration strike setup, cheap, effective, and throw-away. The HUK is made just good enough to accomplish the task.
Anti-Air / Fighter Drones
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1807859742574010571?s=20
Air-to-Air attack Drone
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1990724217990435118?s=20
Done Capture
- Projectile-firing Drone
- Non-explosive collision drone
- Air-Burst HUK drone (command detonated)
- Contact explosive Drone
- Entanglement Drones
- Capture Drones
Air-to-air drones are an interesting concept, but not yet fully realized. Many methods like the above list are being implemented daily. Everyone and their mother has an idea of how they should be built and operated, but their success overall is in question. While many can strike slower-moving recon drones that tend to be built to loiter in an area, striking HUKs and bomber drones aren’t seen as often. We have the suicide drones that run into the other with a small charge. Ones that shoot shotgun-style rounds like the above, which have limited shots and mixed success, drones dropping objects on drones, and net capture drones. The effectiveness of these drones is up for debate, since we don’t see many videos of them in action. Most likely, this is one of the more classified sides of things and also probably one of the more difficult things to do in general. Fighter pilots of the past had to shoot down five aircraft before becoming an ace, and I’m assuming that low number realistically reflects the difficulty of such a task.
Given the infancy of this technology and the unconventional weaponry involved, it’s very hard to get a clear picture of what a true fighter drone looks like. I suspect Russia may have an edge on this, given its industrial practices, if it chooses to. Specific munitions with low recoil but still capable of damaging or destroying a drone are entirely feasible. Those rounds, if built well and have a reliable trajectory, could be devastating to enemy drones. Time will tell whether this happens, or whether the evolution of small, smart munitions renders projectile drones obsolete. Possible fighter drones with tracking capability could be our future, but for now, I think we’ll see basic crash attacks. Drones have seen a rise in AI software, so much like the loitering munition drones that glide and strike targets, these rudimentary AI systems could start picking off things in the air without contact from the ground. Overall, though, collision drones can come with spikes, explosives, etc, which has caused a lot of the drones doing recon to start carrying small explosive charges to destroy any intelligence on the drone itself. Collision drones are more effective at a kill than your standard air-burst drones, but they can sacrifice both drones.
https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1996927379529212168?s=20
Spiked Russian Drone that goes after recon drones
SIGINT Drone (SEAD drone)
Direction Finding SIGINT Drone is able to find targets just from radio waves.
Another interesting tactic that has been developed over time is signals intelligence drones, specifically SEAD drones. These come in two forms: either location and direction finding only, or specific models with a focused antenna and a payload. These drones will hunt down the operator and destroy them, if possible, which is why fiber-optic drone lines have become so prevalent. Not only do these drones have the capability of hunting other drone systems and operators, but they can also go after anti-aircraft and command posts. Fairly early in the war, we realized that command posts were not lasting long in the field, so dispersing command became a priority. With all the signals intelligence gathering technologies that existed before the war, the drone has just become even more of a threat, and its speed to target is that much more of a danger.
Fiber-Optic Drones
Russian fiber kits for various drones
Fiberwire HUK
While not explicitly relegated to one task, most fiber-optic drones have been designed as hunter-killers (both infantry and vehicles) or bunker-busters. I put this group separate from the others for the simple fact that people need to understand these are mainly used to engage targets in high-jamming areas. It is easy to think that everyone would go with this type of system, but the added weight and the tenuous nature of fiber-optic cables being damaged or broken make it less valuable than the radio-controlled ones. That said, these systems can sometimes penetrate up to 20 kilometers into a target area completely covered in jamming and still hit it accurately, making them more valuable than most other drones. For comparison, think of these as the Tomahawk cruise missile of drones. These are kept for specialized targets and high-EW areas. Due to their nature and cost, we don’t see these often, but their use is becoming more prevalent.
Discarded fiberoptic line
https://x.com/DanielR33187703/status/1915136814501028306
Thread on fiber Optic drone production
On the note of fiber optics, there has been a high standard, but with the Chinese embargoes on Ukraine that ended, Ukraine had to make its own. The problem is that they are new to making fiber-optic cable, and the fiber-optic drones started failing at a higher rate. Ukraine was having an 80-90% success rate with these drones, which apparently fell to 30-50% cutting their capability in half. Ukraine has had to source this from nations like Poland, but it was also pilots flying as they had been snapping the lines, and rough terrain apparently caused the line to break. Various other issues were being worked on, including the spools, but this failure allowed Russia to ramp up production and merge/possibly surpass Ukraine in this technology.
Miscellaneous Drones
There has been a large contingency of techniques developed by the Ukrainians and quickly followed by the Russians, dealing with job-specific drones. These range from mine-laying drones to drones that detect and destroy mines. We could spend all day looking at the specific uses of various drones in minor roles, but I will try to stick to the more popular drone systems being used currently in unique ways.
Dragon Drones – flame launching drones of various types, both releasing sub munitions of thermite/white phosphorus, to bunker-clearing drones with forward-facing flame-throwing capabilities.
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1994286890913325413?s=20
Dragon Drone
Mothership drones – Which are larger drones built to carry small HUK drones and relay signals back to controllers. Much like the post-WWII bomber concepts that carried small fighters to defend strategic bombers. Still others are medium altitude long endurance drones that carry the small HUK anti-air style drones capable of defending the airspace.
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1864731305956806662?s=20
Quad Mothership attack drone setup
https://x.com/banderafella/status/1928000752435225024?s=20
Air-to-air mothership drone
Naval Drones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEnAX3LwxVI
Video discussing the attack on the Russian port by Ukraine
https://x.com/RadarFennec/status/1667948975255695360?s=20
Video of attempted attack by semi-submersible stopped by fire
While not regularly seen in videos and in combat, ground drones and the very unique semi-submersible drones have had an impact on the battlefield as well. The semi-submersible drones can attack and sink both warships and logistical ships required for production and commerce. This means actions like those back in the 90s and 80s against Iran could be carried out far more easily and cheaply than ever before. With that said, drone attacks by the Houthis have been lackluster at best, probably due to these drones trying to skim across the water and the US Navy being a little more robust in fighting off small maneuvering weapons systems. It remains to be seen whether strategically deploying drone assets in the water will be as effective as deploying them on land or in the air. I suspect that, given the US Navy’s capabilities, this probably won’t be a major issue during wartime footing. That said, restrictions on the release of weapons may need to be lifted or loosened to protect ships from irregular warfare. I assume Russia’s poor experience with their Navy is more to do with training and capabilities than it really is Ukraine outmatching them with drones in the water. One would also assume this is a wake-up call for just about every Navy in the world, both as a tactical advantage and as a necessity for defense.
Ground Drones
Goliath, a remote-controlled anti-tank mine of WWII
Ground Logistics Drone
Last, and absolutely not least, will be the logistical drones that have emerged. Moving anything from point A to point B has been the bane of every military’s existence. So much so that many armies, such as Napoleon’s, fought with very limited supplies, relying on foraging for food and other necessities during the campaign. This made Napoleon very strategically nimble on the battlefield and allowed him to outmaneuver and outthink many of his contemporaries, defeating larger forces in detail with smaller ones. Russia is currently running a logistical drone train to certain areas to drop off supplies. Unlike larger systems such as trucks, these small drones maneuver through the woods and, while not shown in the video, are generally camouflaged to look like shrubs. It has been theorized that many of these have been given specific mapping information and may have a follow-the-leader system built in, with one or two drones tracking their location using GPS and other methods. This could include people operating drones wirelessly or having drones use gyroscopic positioning to maneuver or follow pre-planned routes. Whatever they are doing seems to be working fairly effectively, even though there aren’t many of them out on the field.
As of right now, most ground drones are being shown to be moved wirelessly by operators, with a reconnaissance air cover to watch them. I don’t think this is the primary way they are doing things now with the advent of technology, but it is possible. I’m hedging my opinion on this because it might be some survivor bias: I am only seeing the drones being manually moved at this point, and I’m speculating on what is really going on. It may be that they run it this way because there aren’t many other options for them at the moment. We do know, however, that they run these during the night as well, which makes me think they are less guided by operators and more by a programmed system. The ground drones driving over anti-personnel mines and not being destroyed make me believe that even more. I could be extremely wrong on this, though.
https://x.com/RT_com/status/1987448024445202449?s=20
Drone logistics on the ground
https://x.com/Cyberspec1/status/1990566535677817273?s=20
Ground drone withstanding anti-personnel mines
These drones also cost far less than a vehicle, and while they can’t carry quite as much, they can be mass-produced and sent out, making it extra difficult for the enemy to clear every single logistical transport. This also means tinier sub-logistical areas that are less noticeable and far easier to hide than your standard logistics hub. A relatively small bunker could be made into a logistical supply hub in no time, and these drones possibly could just be hot-swapping batteries from further back, pushing supplies out at regular intervals or on demand. This means the commander who sees their lines being hit could send a drone with specific supplies to an embattled unit, and if the fighting goes well, that drone can be on station for a much-needed resupply or be held back from the line if it is being overrun. Likewise, the falling-back troops have the opportunity to reach the drone and get a much-needed resupply, and to possibly use it to carry out wounded as well, which is another prominent feature of many of these land-based drones. Neither side wants to admit that they are attacking each other’s casualties, but it is happening on both sides.
These ground transports can carry an injured person, camouflage them, and move them, probably more stealthily than a bunch of people. With the proper air-to-air drones in place, it would make it very difficult for the enemy to attack these ground-based drones or spot them. These systems have much of the same feel as the old World War 2 Goliath mines that Germany employed. Many of these ground drones are tracked and can also carry munitions, but I assume, given their slow pace on the ground, they aren’t as capable as aerial drones in an attack role. So, I don’t see ground attack drones being a thing of the future unless anti-air is revolutionized. Then the question of how fast you can get a ground drone and how much armor you can get comes into play. Until then, this is probably best left on the back burner to think about, rather than being heavily invested in.
Last but not least, as the EW and DFing of radios has become so popular, we are seeing a resurgence of landline communications. It has gotten so common that the Russians are sending out modified versions of their ground drones to dig trenches and lay communication cables. We will see whether this becomes the standard or just a novelty. Regardless of whether it is fiber optics or EW, I see this kind of comms to be fairly crucial in the future.
https://x.com/bertalanzoli/status/1995127382684979275?s=20
Russian land drone burying cable
Tactical Ground Drone
Just like the World War I Goliath drones, everybody is working on ground-based weapons systems as well as flying drones. While much more vulnerable than the air drones, these things have the capability of assisting units in flanking maneuvers or doing risky behavior that you wouldn’t want to send a person into. They can also carry heavy payloads and robust crew-served weapons to engage the enemy with. The downside of these is that they’re not as capable of travelling through rough terrain as a human is, so they are still limited in their capabilities. These two have a practical use and can be very advantageous if used properly, but there are limits, and possible EW interference makes me believe that they won’t be an overly abundant technology until autonomy and friend-foe ID systems become fairly accurate. Not much is known about these other than a few quick promotional videos and one video of Russians being pinned down by one of these machines. This is definitely something that could advance into more interesting fields with the right technology, but I think this is far more difficult than a lot of the aerial drones.
Tactical to Strategic
https://x.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1994785482094383355?s=20
Ukraine’s naval drone is attacking a merchant ship.
As we’ve seen over time, drones’ tactical capabilities are extensive, making them almost uniquely dangerous to everything on the battlefield. The exception is probably aircraft at high altitude, but I’m sure over time, that will change, and realistically, what is a missile other than an unguided drone? These drones can act as ambush predators and strike at almost any time, despite their limited flight time. So, on the battlefield, realistically, there’s nothing out there that drones can’t touch, and we’ve seen this time and time again. The real restrictions on drones are their ability to communicate and the longevity of their fuel supply. I speculate that later on, we will start seeing gasoline-powered drones, but most likely only in the large-format drone. For the foreseeable future, drones’ tactical capabilities will depend on the operator’s ability to communicate and direct their actions.
Now, beyond the scope of what we’ve seen above, there is a strategic level of drone warfare. This has been shown several times by the Ukrainians alone when they drop drones from a mothership-style setup. Multiple militaries are working on the same concept: packing drones into containers that will deploy multiple swarming drones to attack an enemy. Many of these can also be done with a tactical AI system that identifies enemies via image recognition. As these drones get more sophisticated, we’ll probably see systems that travel out and drop off smaller drones to attack behind enemy lines, much as some of the clandestine operations done by Ukraine against Russia’s nuclear aircraft fleet. When I started the original article, the attack on a liquid natural gas ship caused a fire and evacuated the whole town. While many were trying to claim that this was an attack on NATO, the ship was apparently docked in Ukraine at the time.
This, however, moves the concept of drone warfare from a tactical one to a strategic one. The amount of technology and information that’s on the Internet right now is almost insane, especially strategic assets. While I haven’t spent much time looking at information on Russia, many drones are being used to assault the interior of both countries, hitting power and communication nodes. I assume that a lot of the strategic capabilities of both countries have been fortified to a large extent to prevent drone attacks, but some still go through. The Russian defense network is unknown for obvious reasons, and we may never know, simply because this is a new technology with new tests on how to defend strategic assets against it. That said, the concept of strategic warfare on a mass scale with relatively cheap munitions hitting precision strikes should be terrifying to everyone in the world.
Many of the concepts attempted or implemented during World War 2, such as SWEAT-MC, especially on the transportation side of logistics, could be disabled routinely with drones. This comes with very little risk and a low probability of capture and possibly even identifying the culprit. One thing is for sure, though: not every attack will be easy, and specific munitions will likely be needed to successfully carry out a strike on the infrastructure. It is clear, though, that drones can carry thermite to a train track and place it at multiple locations. The same could be said for transmission lines and other electrical networks. This means a lot of the capabilities of a modern military are now in the hands of people and rogue organizations with very little investment. So attacks don’t have to logically target troops and the infrastructure to destabilize and destroy things. Also, while not yet possible, strategic asset movement by drones is feasible, but only on a very limited scale. In the future, I see a logistical map of drone networks moving supplies to battle lines, eliminating the time required to deliver them and the risk of moving them into inhospitable areas. Unlike the lackluster drone delivery systems being tested in cities, these will probably be a far simpler setup, and might only be for critical items.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/rosnefts-ryazan-refinery-suspended-crude-processing-after-drone-strike-sources-2025-11-18/
Attack on Ryazan Refinery with drones
Failures in Thought
Failures in current tactics are pretty obvious when you think about them, but under the stress of war, we miss things. With the insane number of drone styles and the future of small arms eventually being able to attack these drones reliably, it is time for a paint job. Why no one thought to paint these drones like we did in WWI or WWII is beyond me. First, if you mark them so they are easily identified, your own troops won’t shoot at them, but we might be beyond that point and need to color them to look like the sky, so they aren’t easily spotted. Especially the bombers that go out on multiple missions, which you don’t want to lose. I think a lot of the people are rushing these out, and the one that uses HUK drones plus the weight of the paint might be making people not think about camouflage.
The biggest issue we see with drones is their lack of flight time, speed, and size. Size matters, though, and so much of what I see in US development makes little to no sense. For instance, with every helicopter being shot out of the sky in Ukraine, Sikorsky and Boeing are, of course, developing the largest drones they can. Unlike other companies like SAXON, which make smaller frames in the mid-level size, and are obviously looking at stealth and even developing ground drones. The US has been hyper-focused on large drones with lots of weapons instead of being smart about this and going small and nimble. Mind you, Sikorsky’s UH-60 drone is a good idea, though the nose entry is a bit of a problem. That asset can at least handle logistics flights to and from FOBs without risking anything but the cargo. That said, I believe these companies are looking at big-picture dollars rather than the little-picture stream-of-income concept. Since they are designed to build large aircraft, they don’t have the industry to construct small ones, so they are probably pushing large-frame drones. There is a place with them, but I think it isn’t going to be the way they think. No human will ever want to sit on a drone-only aircraft, even if that aircraft is being flown by computers 99% of the time. Likewise, heavy-lift cargo drones will be complex, and not having someone on board means those rumblings and shudders of something wrong may go unnoticed. This means we might have more crashes, which in combat won’t be an issue, but in peacetime might kill a whole program.
Lockheed Martin VTOL tactical drone
Then there are these tactical drones people are envisioning, and their concept looks like a future weapon for GWOT, not a near-peer weapon system. Overall, though, large frames are significant targets for everyone. These companies need to think like munition plants if they want to move forward. If I could ask them questions, it would probably be this. What do these drones do? Is it more effective than what we currently have in the US Armory? I suspect they would cite statistics on a pilot’s protection, which is true, but realistically, that is no different from an A-10 or even the now-retired Kiowa. How do these aircraft fare in terms of the current conflicts? I guess the size and structure of these drones, even if we stealth them a bit, will be very limited due to the propeller blades and their heat signature. How much will this cost the taxpayer?
Boeing VTOL
One of the benefits of the Sikorsky UH-60 project is the use of a well-known airframe with existing manufacturing and repair processes. This means the whole logistics train doesn’t necessarily have to be open for this concept, even if we purchase new ones. What these companies are not realizing is that there is money in smaller drones, especially heavy-lift drones, and in their ability to remain at a survivable altitude. While some of the videos you can find on these new American-made drones are flying at low levels, they are no closer to the ground than many of our very good pilots can achieve. I think primarily this has to do with the fact that these drones are trying to fly faster and longer, which is an admirable quality, but there were restrictions on this that should be apparent to these companies. Time will tell if these companies figure this out, but it seems like a bunch of corporate dorks aren’t looking at the war from in the field, but from a file in the Department of War offices.
Marines combat drone
Rogue 1 strike drone, 70,000 dollars per unit, has been purchased by the US military. As a side note, the Marines using this will get killed 5-10km before they even get into range to use it by a $1000 FPV with pixel lock and a digital link. Yes, much like a $50,000+ L/S band drone like this will. The difference is that $1000 FPV takes 5 minutes to swap RF links. That 50k drone takes a contract and months to do the same. Gimble drone vs Fixed FPV. There’s been speculation that these drones have the pixel-locked feature discussed below, among a lot of other anti-jamming capabilities. Many people have been denigrating this drone because of the cost alone, and I can understand this feeling of not wanting to run something so expensive when a far less costly drone could be just as capable, if not more capable, in a permissive environment. That’s what I think a lot of these devices are going to be far easier to operate and more capable than the cheap FPV drones that are consistently missing targets. Time will tell if the Marines find these drones capable of actually doing their job versus the cost of these devices. I don’t have high hopes for an initial production line, but I hope this creates A deeper interest and input into the projects by the Marines operating them, which will help develop better technology in the future.
Evolution of the Drones and the weapons trying to defeat them.
Munitions evolution
Munitions dropped from drones tend to need some serious modifications, just like the issues seen in WWI with dropped mortars and grenades. Updates and design features have become inconsistent to the point that much of this can be purchased from China, notably. The redesign of coordinate systems has created an interesting set of detonation techniques. Skipping past some of the chemical contact fuses for electric-based systems, these detonators are far more stable in the field for people to build and install, retaining the reliability of more manufactured detonators. It seems to me that these electrical detonators are far more practical, both in their simple construction and their uses in the field for low-impact ignition. This is why you don’t see a lot of the more complex warhead constructions that retain safety and capability for artillery.
While not seen as much, airburst capabilities are being sold, although I’m not sure how capable these munitions really are overall. It will be interesting to see the evolution of these small detonators and how they are implemented. Logistically moving these detonators along with the munitions can also create a bit of a bottleneck, requiring the operator to understand the drone and its techniques, along with understanding the safety of munitions. While this isn’t overly complicated, there is a reason why the US military tasks certain things to individuals so that when stress and sleep are gone, skilled personnel won’t make horrible mistakes. There is a balance between the tooth and the tail when it comes to logistics, but skill level also plays a part in how much you can shorten that tail. It will be interesting to see what the US military does about this and how both Russia and Ukraine have really addressed this situation in the field. Chances are we won’t see the SOPs until the end of the war, though.
Electronic custom munition bodies with electric detonator
Air burst style activator.
Pixel lock
Pixel Lock is a technique for capturing an image with a camera and then enlarging it using software. The expansion is the drone flying toward the target, with pixels growing as a simple image algorithm verifies the pixel pattern and adjusts the flight path. The simple idea is that the drone can then lock on and, without exterior input, fly to the target independently. This can be done by simple processors like Raspberry Pi, making it affordable and off-the-shelf. That said, many military developers are also working with this technology.
https://youtube.com/shorts/_lj3AaEtoGw?si=j7xqI3adZBVbfMjh
RF/GPS Jamming
The ability of jammers is becoming more capable by the day. With that said, the magnitude of its capabilities depends on both the device’s output antenna design and its specific design features. Obviously, jammers meant for people will not have the output of jammers for the defense of structures or vehicles. Even with these jamming systems, a lot of the issues with drones still persist due to fiber optics and drones that seek in on specific electronic emissions. That said, jamming of both the RF spectrum that allows drones to be operated wirelessly and the GPS is our force multiplier for those trying to defend themselves. While fiber optic drones are in the field and a major concern, a lot of the people flying these don’t have a good situational awareness of what they see versus mapping, which causes a number of misses and no kill missions to be propagated on both sides.
It’s far easier to jam a GPS signal than it is some of the RF spectrum with things as simple as a Port-a-Pack having that capability. You can actually spoof specific signals to divert GPS systems into thinking they’re in one spot instead of another, although this is far more complicated than just jamming the signal altogether. These systems are definitely far more capable when they’re attached to a vehicle with some kind of electrical system on it. If done correctly, hundreds of watts can be produced in an omnidirectional area, denying the enemy forces the capability of sending a drone in close. This can be mitigated, at times, through specific tactics and additional work by the drone operators. Although no specific data has been distributed to prove the effects of the jamming techniques, it seems to be very obvious that jamming has saved both vehicles and people from being directly hit by all but the most sophisticated drone systems. With the cost of radio direction finding drones and those of fiber optics drones, it seems to be an easy way to slow down mass assaults without incurring large numbers of your own drones in the process.
Microwave drone guns
Microwave drone killing weapons have been around for quite a while now and are prevalent in a lot of personal protection teams. These anti-drone weapons focus a cone of energy, which will soft-kill a drone, frying the electronics and dropping it out of the sky. Weapons like these can also handle swarms of drones, unlike kinetic style weapons such as shotguns and these frangible rounds. Theoretically, a lot of these drones could be protected from this kind of device, but with that need comes a higher cost point and a lot more problems in controlling the drone itself. If the drone has an antenna, then the weapon would be able to feed any of the communication systems by pushing out a lot of energy. These weapons also work on the fiber optic guided drones because the exposed electronics are easily destroyed by this system. I believe systems like this would be more beneficial on top of tanks than many of the other kinetic weapons created so far.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Patriotman
Related Posts
GUNS N GEAR
