> Its hard for an unalerted human to defend against a fast-moving strike drone flock. Against a civilian - no hope.
So what? It's hard for an unalerted human to defend against a fastpitch baseball to the head too. Because something is deadly doesn't make it practical.
My point is that this is a nonsensical threat (suicide drones) that will not be developed because there are so many effective, and much cheaper methods of neutralizing targets.
I'm not saying weaponized drones aren't a future threat. I'm saying that C4-strapped, wildly-aerobatic weaponized drones are Hollywood threats, not real world threats. The dumb alternatives (bullets, mortars, etc) are too effective and too inexpensive, and the weapons that are high-tech will use more sophisticated attack vectors (like what we're already seeing).
Other techniques are human-attended. Remote drones are very appealing as we've seen for most of a decade now. Anybody can afford them; its anonymous; it comes from above so is hard to anticipate.
Interested in other attack vectors..what did you mean by that?
> Other techniques are human-attended. Remote drones are very appealing as we've seen for most of a decade now. Anybody can afford them; its anonymous; it comes from above so is hard to anticipate.
How is a drone swarm not human-attended in a way that is distinct from existing drone weapon systems? More specifically, what advantages does a drone swarm have over existing drone weapon systems?
I still think you're missing the reason why this is a non-starter. It's not that they're ineffective (although I'd argue that they are of limited effectiveness), it's that there are too many better alternatives.
> Anybody can afford them; its anonymous; it comes from above so is hard to anticipate.
Russian 50mm mortars are inexpensive and readily available on the arms market. You can drag it through mud, drop it, and shoot it with small arms, and it will still work.
It's anonymous, because the high trajectory allows you to fire from an enclosed position, then simply walk away when you're done; remember they're cheap and available.
When you fire a mortar, it travels a long distance and comes from above, so it's hard to anticipate.
Guerilla forces love mortars. They use them all the time. They get the job done.
The SciFi-fantasty drone swarm is far too cumbersome and expensive for guerrilla forces, and it's too much of a blunt instrument for 1st-world powers.
First-world powers don't need kamikaze drones, because they can field larger, more sophisticated drones that are mounted with more advanced sensors and traditional munitions. They can fire on many targets in succession with terribly effective weaponry like a 20mm cannon. They can fire from altitude where you don't even see them. They can fly in-theater, autonomously until the time that they're needed. They can return to base, be reloaded with cheap ammunition, then return to the theater of operation.
There are some very limited scenarios where the weapon system you're proposing makes sense, but it's a tiny niche. There are too many simpler, effective options to acheive the same result. The only thing this concept has going for it is the cool factor, which doesn't count for much.
Ok you can be deliberately dense if you like. Its pretty apparent to me that a maneuverable drone that can navigate urban environments, hover, identify a target then decide to act is quite different from the blunt-instrument mortars and million-dollar airplane drones we use now.
Science-fiction? You just watched the video, and you dismiss it somehow as fantasy?
For instance, for assassination, intimidation, even spying (look in a 30th-floor window, relay audio and video) a rotored drone has no equal.
It'll be amusing to see the expression on your face the first time a quad-rotor drone peers in your window. "Hey! That can't be! It's impractical in the scenarios I've imagined!"
You just expressed several views with which I have no disagreement. Your original statement was:
> However, that helicopter seems ideal for antipersonnel rapid assault. Add an ounce of C4 and how could you defend against it?
I asked some pretty pointed questions about that hypothetical, and you haven't offered any rebuttal. I've also tried to explore their utility from the viewpoint of a guerrilla soldiers and a nation state.
Yes, I believe that small drones will be utilized. Yes, I believe they will be weaponized. Yes, I believe we really should do something about it! I just don't think the small ones will be weaponized in the way you're suggesting (strap on an ounce of C4 and send them in swarms). That's all.
So what? It's hard for an unalerted human to defend against a fastpitch baseball to the head too. Because something is deadly doesn't make it practical.
My point is that this is a nonsensical threat (suicide drones) that will not be developed because there are so many effective, and much cheaper methods of neutralizing targets.
I'm not saying weaponized drones aren't a future threat. I'm saying that C4-strapped, wildly-aerobatic weaponized drones are Hollywood threats, not real world threats. The dumb alternatives (bullets, mortars, etc) are too effective and too inexpensive, and the weapons that are high-tech will use more sophisticated attack vectors (like what we're already seeing).