Regarding drone defense, I'm down with miniature EMP devices to knock them down. Fewer pellets getting scattered and coming down with essentially the same velocity and energy as they had when fired. Only things falling out of the sky would be the target drones and the drones delivering the EMP.
Certainly, EMP devices will be devilishly expensive initially (the wave guides need precision), but likely would come down with mass production.
They would need to be powerful enough for the wave front to reach a few 10s of feet before the inverse square "rule" reduced it to less than computer lethality, yet small/light enough for a drone of "convenient" size (bigger than a backyard quadracopter, but not much bigger than something with a 6-ft (running off the top of my head here) wing span.
The long poles in this tent, as I understand the physics, are the size of the needed wave guide and the weight of the explosive needed to produce the pulse.
If it's not going to be drone mounted, I wouldn't recommend it for individual soldiers other than via a launching mechanism akin to a Javelin or a Stinger. He's carrying his own set of computers that don't need to be fried.
The next step will be EMP-shielded drones. Just brainstorming here, but it's not hard to imagine how that will work. Use programmed drones that don't need external guidance. Use a Faraday cage to shield the sensitive internals. Some things might need to be changed from electronic to mechanical.
It wouldn't be perfect. They would be heavier, thus maybe slower and easier for a shotgun to take down. It would probably shorten their range, loiter, and payload as well, and they'd be more expensive to make.
Maybe instead of shielded drones the response would just be to send huge swarms, knowing EMP would take some out.
Thanks for the link. Looking at the website, Leonidas uses HPM - High-power microwave. If quick search results are right, this isn't EMP but is a related thing. Here's the Emsopedia entry on HPM:
There are a couple of ways to harden against EMP, even of the type I've contemplated here. One is the suggested Faraday cage housing the collection of critical computer components. Which would be insufficient; the whole drone would need to be caged (not that hard, just more expensive). The reason only caging the computer components would be insufficient is that the wiring carrying the computers' decisions out to the rest of the aircraft and the aircraft's sensors in to the computers are themselves wave guides that would carry the impulse, now no longer dissipating, in to the computers, frying them. This is why it's necessary--and cheap--to physically unplug the household computers, the data centers, financial system server rooms, etc. That air gaps the things, breaking that "last mile" wave guide. Airgapping, though, requires some measure of advance warning.
The other way would involve using vacuum tubes rather than integrated circuits. That, of course, would degrade the computers, and they would require frequent retuning of the tubes. Alternatively, maybe it would be sufficient simply to put the tubes at the outer edge of the circuitry, just inside the cage, and let the CPUs be CPUs. The vacuum tubes are, after all air gaps (vacuum gaps) themselves and would break the wave guide aspect of the wiring. Glorified surge protectors, if you will, but much hardier.
Making them cage it also reduces range and payload. It’s a good deal all around.
The real issue with drones is that all the little parts, valves, etc. are only made in China. We have no supply chain for them that doesn’t use Chinese components. So if they’re the wave of future warfare, we’re way behind.
14 comments:
Regarding drone defense, I'm down with miniature EMP devices to knock them down. Fewer pellets getting scattered and coming down with essentially the same velocity and energy as they had when fired. Only things falling out of the sky would be the target drones and the drones delivering the EMP.
Certainly, EMP devices will be devilishly expensive initially (the wave guides need precision), but likely would come down with mass production.
Eric Hines
How big would they be? Could individual soldiers carry & use them?
They would need to be powerful enough for the wave front to reach a few 10s of feet before the inverse square "rule" reduced it to less than computer lethality, yet small/light enough for a drone of "convenient" size (bigger than a backyard quadracopter, but not much bigger than something with a 6-ft (running off the top of my head here) wing span.
The long poles in this tent, as I understand the physics, are the size of the needed wave guide and the weight of the explosive needed to produce the pulse.
If it's not going to be drone mounted, I wouldn't recommend it for individual soldiers other than via a launching mechanism akin to a Javelin or a Stinger. He's carrying his own set of computers that don't need to be fried.
Eric Hines
That's pretty interesting. How far along is development?
Until they come online, Browning has this:
https://www.browning.com/products/firearms/shotguns/gold/overview.html
I'm not aware of any serious development effort. There's too much fear from EMP association with nuclear detonations.
Eric Hines
There are at least two. The Chinese have a cheap one with an advanced radar package; we have a more expensive model called the Leonidas.
https://www.epirusinc.com/
There are reports of rifle-sized Russian ones called Stupors, and Ukraine claims they have something similar.
How resilient are police/fire dispatch systems against this sort of thing? If it's out there, probably the cartels can afford it.
The next step will be EMP-shielded drones. Just brainstorming here, but it's not hard to imagine how that will work. Use programmed drones that don't need external guidance. Use a Faraday cage to shield the sensitive internals. Some things might need to be changed from electronic to mechanical.
It wouldn't be perfect. They would be heavier, thus maybe slower and easier for a shotgun to take down. It would probably shorten their range, loiter, and payload as well, and they'd be more expensive to make.
Maybe instead of shielded drones the response would just be to send huge swarms, knowing EMP would take some out.
Thanks for the link. Looking at the website, Leonidas uses HPM - High-power microwave. If quick search results are right, this isn't EMP but is a related thing. Here's the Emsopedia entry on HPM:
https://www.emsopedia.org/entries/high-power-microwave-hpm/
According to that article, Diehl Defense and Teledyne also have products on the market, though it looks like nothing man-portable.
After looking at Grim's link to Epirus, it seems the weapons in use are HPM, not EMP, so I have no idea if my comment on shielding has any merit.
Interesting! One of the Diehl Defense products is advertised for stopping motor vehicles. Presumably you fry their electronics.
https://www.diehl.com/group/en/technology/innovation/hpem/
You can think of HPM as a sort of subset of EMPs. Here's a helpful article on HPMs as a form of anti-electronic warfare.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm
There are a couple of ways to harden against EMP, even of the type I've contemplated here. One is the suggested Faraday cage housing the collection of critical computer components. Which would be insufficient; the whole drone would need to be caged (not that hard, just more expensive). The reason only caging the computer components would be insufficient is that the wiring carrying the computers' decisions out to the rest of the aircraft and the aircraft's sensors in to the computers are themselves wave guides that would carry the impulse, now no longer dissipating, in to the computers, frying them. This is why it's necessary--and cheap--to physically unplug the household computers, the data centers, financial system server rooms, etc. That air gaps the things, breaking that "last mile" wave guide. Airgapping, though, requires some measure of advance warning.
The other way would involve using vacuum tubes rather than integrated circuits. That, of course, would degrade the computers, and they would require frequent retuning of the tubes. Alternatively, maybe it would be sufficient simply to put the tubes at the outer edge of the circuitry, just inside the cage, and let the CPUs be CPUs. The vacuum tubes are, after all air gaps (vacuum gaps) themselves and would break the wave guide aspect of the wiring. Glorified surge protectors, if you will, but much hardier.
Eric Hines
Making them cage it also reduces range and payload. It’s a good deal all around.
The real issue with drones is that all the little parts, valves, etc. are only made in China. We have no supply chain for them that doesn’t use Chinese components. So if they’re the wave of future warfare, we’re way behind.
Post a Comment