Senators Jack Reed and Roger Wicker have an op-ed in the Washington Post about the danger of military's insufficient drone detection capabilities.
These uncrewed aircraft systems, or UAS, pose multiple challenges: They have interfered with commercial flightpaths and crossed our southern border uncontested. Many have been identified flying over military bases and nuclear facilities, such as Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and our test ranges in the western United States.
In classified briefings and open settings, our committee has examined the threat posed by high-altitude craft and low-altitude drones. We discovered a series of underlying issues complicating an effective response to them.
Any legislator pushing to upgrade the US military to support/protect our servicing men and women I applaud, but the timing of the senators' message could have been better. Just a couple weeks ago the US shot down the bulk of the drones/cruise missiles launched by the Iranians against the Israelis.
According to U.S. military sources and preliminary reporting, U.S. and allied aircraft shot down the majority of drones and cruise missiles. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the Royal Air Force Typhoons intercepted “a number” of Iranian weapons over Iraqi and Syrian airspace.
U.S. aircraft, however, shot down “more than” 80 Iranian weapons, according to U.S. military sources.
Also a high probability the Jordanian and British fighters that shoot down drones were directed by US AWACs and/or warships.
Using ECM, the USN also took down Iranian drones that were harassing one of the 'gators in the Strait of Hormuz a few years back. Don't recall which amphib it was, but they used a USMC truck mounted system operated from the flight deck.
And just a few days ago, I saw this:
The US Navy wants to test its first high-powered microwave weapon on board a sea-faring vessel as early as 2026. Known as Project METEOR, the experimental weaponry will blast out beams of intense electromagnetic energy to fry the electronics of drones.
Not saying we (or any nation for that matter) couldn't be better equipped to detect and counter drones, but we've proven a fairly robust capability to date when it has counted.
Any legislator pushing to upgrade the US military to support/protect our servicing men and women I applaud, but the timing of the senators' message could have been better. Just a couple weeks ago the US shot down the bulk of the drones/cruise missiles launched by the Iranians against the Israelis.
According to U.S. military sources and preliminary reporting, U.S. and allied aircraft shot down the majority of drones and cruise missiles. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the Royal Air Force Typhoons intercepted “a number” of Iranian weapons over Iraqi and Syrian airspace.
U.S. aircraft, however, shot down “more than” 80 Iranian weapons, according to U.S. military sources.
Also a high probability the Jordanian and British fighters that shoot down drones were directed by US AWACs and/or warships.
Using ECM, the USN also took down Iranian drones that were harassing one of the 'gators in the Strait of Hormuz a few years back. Don't recall which amphib it was, but they used a USMC truck mounted system operated from the flight deck.
And just a few days ago, I saw this:
The US Navy wants to test its first high-powered microwave weapon on board a sea-faring vessel as early as 2026. Known as Project METEOR, the experimental weaponry will blast out beams of intense electromagnetic energy to fry the electronics of drones.
Not saying we (or any nation for that matter) couldn't be better equipped to detect and counter drones, but we've proven a fairly robust capability to date when it has counted.
I think, and you seem more directly experienced here so I presume you'd know better, but employing a lot of these assets we've used overseas to achieve this would more than likely not happen I don't think. I don't see Whiteman for example using more er, conventional means of taking them down. Sending up AWACs and fighters and all too would be a really big resource expense for a DJI. I could see a lot of folks saying no within the chain of command for those decisions.
The EW front I undoubtedly agree on and the senators could have a pretty good argument in widening access to critical locations having more robust defensive EW capabilities though.
There's a ton of factors that make this different.
The drones and cruise missiles used by Iran were large generally predictably straight flying vehicles and the drones were probably Shahad type drones, basically autonomous light aircraft with a bomb in them. Downing these when not facing any opposing air defense is no issue for modern western air forces, the main issue for modern warfare is that the cost to do so is large compared to the cost of launching them, in a prolonged conflict this might matter, for a one off salvo by Iran it's of course something they would do it might cost a few billion or so but intercepting them if they could was always going to happen.
Additionally we were probably able to shoot them down over desert or some other low population area (or, cynically, an area where they didn't really care about what/who they might hit on the way down or where our missile fragments, shrapnel etc might end up.)
The word drone covers a huge range of aircraft types from tiny commercial quadcopters to huge jet aircraft, it's important not to conflate the 2, a load of Shahads over the desert is radically different to some DJI Quadcopters over a US homeland airbase near a population center.
The US military is not gonna fire weapons at a small quadcopters over a base, even if they could hit them, because a stray missile or bullet could easily kill or injure a person or damage something.
EW would be a lot better for this type of defense but there's a huge lack of clarity about this drone activity reported over US bases no-one seemingly actually knows what exactly is going on.
Is it a problem of just civilians flying commercial drones near airbases and the military/friendly senators looking for more funding? Or are we talking real foreign spying issues? Is it a US military wide "drone flap?"
And of course we have the UFO people jumping on this with the usual "the US military isn't shooting them down, which means they can't which means they are NHI craft."
I think, and you seem more directly experienced here so I presume you'd know better, but employing a lot of these assets we've used overseas to achieve this would more than likely not happen I don't think. I don't see Whiteman for example using more er, conventional means of taking them down. Sending up AWACs and fighters and all too would be a really big resource expense for a DJI. I could see a lot of folks saying no within the chain of command for those decisions.
The EW front I undoubtedly agree on and the senators could have a pretty good argument in widening access to critical locations having more robust defensive EW capabilities though.
Don't disagree at all. Clearly rules of engagement in a war zone are very different than what we'd employ in/around Knob Noster, MO. And yes ECM, lacking the kinetic impact of missiles, AAA, or even small arms, is a more realistic approach in combating drones in domestic, populated areas. We also know there have been a number of non-lethal, anti-drone systems tested using things like bean bag and net firing weapons, and even trained birds of prey.
I think some of this is modern day "Spy vs. Spy" right out of MAD Magazine. I think the bad guys create situations to gauge our anti-drone reaction times and capabilities, while in those situations we (hopefully) sandbag a bit to not reveal the full extent of our capabilities. It has got to be a delicate balancing act deciding whether you are better off letting a drone get away as opposed to revealing an operational capability to take down that drone.
Maybe the USA could buy a few of these? The UK needs the money.
(Well, that's @Ann K's roast duck sorted out for this evening).
DragonFire: UK laser could be used against Russian drones on Ukraine front line [Er, but maybe not soon, read on- John J.]
12 April 2024 Ian Casey, Jonathan Beale, BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603
A UK high-power laser weapon could be sent to Ukraine to take down Russian drones, the defence secretary says.
According to Grant Shapps, the weapon could have "huge ramifications" for the conflict in Europe.
The DragonFire weapon is expected to be rolled out by 2027, but Mr Shapps said he wanted to "speed up" production and make it available sooner.
It follows a successful trial of the laser, carried out against an aerial target for the first time in January.
The laser was originally expected to be operational by 2032, but new reforms intended to speed up government procurement of weapons mean that it will now be ready five years earlier.
Despite this, the defence secretary told reporters while on a visit to Porton Down military research centre near Salisbury that he wanted to speed this up even further.
"Let's say that it didn't have to be 100% perfect in order for Ukrainians perhaps to get their hands on it," he said.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says the faster timetable comes in response to the "rapidly changing threat environment" faced by the UK.
"It's designed to not wait until we have this at 99.9% perfection before it goes into the field, but get it to sort of 70% and then get it out there and then develop it from there," Mr Shapps said.
"But 2027 is still the date as of this moment," he continued.
The DragonFire weapon system is the result of a £100m joint investment by the MoD and industry
The weapon is precise enough to hit a £1 coin from a kilometre away, according to the MoD. It is hoped that it will pave the way for a low-cost alternative to missiles, to shoot down targets such as drones.
January's successful test of the weapon was carried out at the MoD's Hebrides Range in Scotland and was hailed as a "major step" in bringing laser-directed energy weapons (LDEWs) into service.
The greatest advantage of lasers is cost and, in theory, an "unlimited magazine" of ammunition - as long as there is a reliable source of power. But the big drawback is that they can only fire at targets in the line of sight, unlike most missiles.
The US has been testing directed-energy weapons for decades. They have been fitted on to several warships for trials and evaluation.
The UK's ambition to do the same by 2027 might be possible, but lasers have not been tried and tested in battle. US warships are still shooting down Houthi drones in the Red Sea with conventional missiles.
Any suggestion that UK lasers could be sent to Ukraine to take out Russian drones is optimistic.
Ukraine's demands are more urgent. It requires mobile air defence systems which have been proven in battle. With its electrical grid constantly being targeted by Russia, lasers which require a source of power, are unlikely to be the solution to Ukraine's urgent needs.
LDEWs use an intense light beam to cut through their target and can strike at the speed of light. As a line-of-sight weapon, it can attack any visible target that is close enough, although the range of the DragonFire system is classified.
Missiles can be far more expensive than the drones they destroy, with some costing millions of pounds compared with a few thousand.
The MoD says firing the DragonFire system for 10 seconds is the cost equivalent of using a regular heater for an hour, with the operating expense typically less than £10 a shot.
Maybe the USA could buy a few of these? The UK needs the money.
(Well, that's @Ann K's roast duck sorted out for this evening).
DragonFire: UK laser could be used against Russian drones on Ukraine front line [Er, but maybe not soon, read on- John J.]
12 April 2024 Ian Casey, Jonathan Beale, BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603
A UK high-power laser weapon could be sent to Ukraine to take down Russian drones, the defence secretary says.
According to Grant Shapps, the weapon could have "huge ramifications" for the conflict in Europe.
The DragonFire weapon is expected to be rolled out by 2027, but Mr Shapps said he wanted to "speed up" production and make it available sooner.
It follows a successful trial of the laser, carried out against an aerial target for the first time in January.
The laser was originally expected to be operational by 2032, but new reforms intended to speed up government procurement of weapons mean that it will now be ready five years earlier.
Despite this, the defence secretary told reporters while on a visit to Porton Down military research centre near Salisbury that he wanted to speed this up even further.
"Let's say that it didn't have to be 100% perfect in order for Ukrainians perhaps to get their hands on it," he said.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says the faster timetable comes in response to the "rapidly changing threat environment" faced by the UK.
"It's designed to not wait until we have this at 99.9% perfection before it goes into the field, but get it to sort of 70% and then get it out there and then develop it from there," Mr Shapps said.
"But 2027 is still the date as of this moment," he continued.
The DragonFire weapon system is the result of a £100m joint investment by the MoD and industry
The weapon is precise enough to hit a £1 coin from a kilometre away, according to the MoD. It is hoped that it will pave the way for a low-cost alternative to missiles, to shoot down targets such as drones.
January's successful test of the weapon was carried out at the MoD's Hebrides Range in Scotland and was hailed as a "major step" in bringing laser-directed energy weapons (LDEWs) into service.
The greatest advantage of lasers is cost and, in theory, an "unlimited magazine" of ammunition - as long as there is a reliable source of power. But the big drawback is that they can only fire at targets in the line of sight, unlike most missiles.
The US has been testing directed-energy weapons for decades. They have been fitted on to several warships for trials and evaluation.
The UK's ambition to do the same by 2027 might be possible, but lasers have not been tried and tested in battle. US warships are still shooting down Houthi drones in the Red Sea with conventional missiles.
Any suggestion that UK lasers could be sent to Ukraine to take out Russian drones is optimistic.
Ukraine's demands are more urgent. It requires mobile air defence systems which have been proven in battle. With its electrical grid constantly being targeted by Russia, lasers which require a source of power, are unlikely to be the solution to Ukraine's urgent needs.
LDEWs use an intense light beam to cut through their target and can strike at the speed of light. As a line-of-sight weapon, it can attack any visible target that is close enough, although the range of the DragonFire system is classified.
Missiles can be far more expensive than the drones they destroy, with some costing millions of pounds compared with a few thousand.
The MoD says firing the DragonFire system for 10 seconds is the cost equivalent of using a regular heater for an hour, with the operating expense typically less than £10 a shot.
The DragonFire laser appears to offer the same (high/unlimited) magazine capacity and low cost per engagement the USN is seeking with their METEOR microwave system (see post #3 above.) Certainly better than a one missile/one kill scenario using SAMs and AAMs (costing over an order of magnitude of the cost of drones) and likely to quickly deplete ready missile stocks in drone swarm attacks.
