Do modern armies possess means to effectively take down RC planes or very small (say max. 1 meter wide) UAVs that (at least theoretically) could pose a threat?
What? Are we talking about the Vatican Air Force here?
No, I’m talking vehicles small enough to not look (if even show at all) suspicious enough on radar yet able to carry enough payload to be dangerous.
The old drones they used for Stinger target practice weren’t much big than that. The newer ones are bigger but that’s because they have a telemetry package in them. So yes they can shoot them down. The bigger problem is knowing where to look.
I don’t wish to be unkind but the clear answer to your question is Yes. Iran claims they recently captured or shot-down an American drone.
It isn’t rocket science.
The strength of an unmanned aircraft is that it is small and difficult to detect at high altitudes - but nevertheless, never invisible. It can be detected. And eliminated.
The problem for the defenders is not one but twenty or fifty drones all over the sky 24/7: how can they be certain they have detected them all?
Firstly that drone isn’t really that small. It is 26 m wide and probably weights a couple of tonnes. Secondly it wasn’t shot down. It was pretty much hacked (well not really, they didn’t directly take control of it, they made it land in Iran using trick involving GPS jamming, you can find more details over the Internet).
They couldn’t pose a threat. Using the EasyStar as an example, it has a wingspan of 135 cm but only weighs about 700 grams. The lightest RPG-7 round is three times heavier.
knowledge is power. I don’t think the military is worried about suicide drones. But they don’t like it when people are looking over their shoulder.
And yes, I am aware that there is an active effort to build suicide drones for the US military. Right now it is noisy missiles fired from predators. In the future a bird sized drone will slap up against a wall with a shaped charge to destroy a single room. Ain’t technology grand? :dubious:
These can apparently carry a 15 lb payload but its 2.4 meters or so wingspan.
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/srtele.htm
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but for any size RC plane wouldn’t it be more efficient and easier to build homemade rockets…in terms of the range and accuracy that you’re going to achieve.
If it was effective I’d imagine you would have seen swarms of RC planes used by Hamas released from Lebanon. The fact that we haven’t and they are only used for surveillance makes me think its just not practical.
The target drones the Stinger shoots down have a flare attached to provide an Infrared Signature similiar to a jet aircraft. The Stinger seeker however is sensitive enough to pickup a small piston aircraft’s engine exhaust.
As Loach said, you might miss a shot if you’re not scanning in the right direction.
The UAV the Iranians captured/shot down/GPS jammed is huge. Wingspan is over 65 feet and weight is around 9000lb. RQ-180 Sentinel.
With anthing like this, your tradeoffs are range, size, speed, payload, stealth. Bigger, larger radar/IR/noise signatures, and slower are easier to detect. The military and Secret Service are aware of the threat from an RC plane in a small targeted area. And they are not spilling any beans about capability.
Using RC planes loaded with nitro was a key plot point used by Walter Wager in his 1981 book Blue Moon. In that one, the bad guys were trying to take down Las Vegas for nefarious purposes.
Why don’t we build these things with a remote self-destruct function? In the case of the Iranians, instead of boning up on the latest UAV technology, they’d have a pile of scorched scrap metal instead.
The “noisy missile” they fire is a Hellfire. It travels at Mach 1.3 and can be fired from 10 km away. So all that noise gets to you after you are dead. And yes it uses a shaped charge.
I assume it would be a problem of reliably doing enough damage to the stuff you want to hide.
And it would so kill you to type out actual words, instead of providing initialisms for us to guess at. :rolleyes:
The obvious answer is that fail-deadly explosive or thermal charges make ground maintenance crews a touch nervous. From what I understand, they can be twitchy enough about the ejection seats (misfires from those things have killed at least a few maintenance technicians throughout history). Of course, they also have crews who handle load and unload warheads with thousands of pounds of high explosives (these are not the same guys who check the fluids and troubleshoot the radio systems, of course).
Otherwise, they probably just figured it wasn’t worth the trouble, as with any other “Why don’t they…” situation.
And the answer to the question is “If they can see it, they can shoot it”. From what I understand, there are various active-defense systems for armored vehicles designed to knock down anti-armor rockets, so if that seems practical, I don’t see how using missiles or automatic weapons (that is, gatling guns or machine guns) to knock down a small drone would be impractical.
Isn’t that what a cruise missile is? They’ve been around since WWII.
For some drones, absolutely.
I wonder about cases where a drone flies too high to be taken out by ground-based MGs or Gatlings yet is cheaper than a missile/aircraft sortie.
If a faction used hundreds/thousands of RC planes that cost a few hundred/thousand dollars each, how would a country deal with that?
Probably the same way they deal with countries who use hundreds/thousands of regular planes that cost a few hundred thousand/million dollars each. Try to take them out on the ground and attack their support structures. A smaller drone would also necessarily have a reduced range over a full-size plane, simply because a bigger plane can carry more fuel for longer-range trips, so they’d have to be able to get those thousands of drones close enough to the front lines without keeping them clustered together to make easy targets.