[Goose]

The anti-armor drones will have a two-stage HEAT warhead detonated by contact or by the target detection software. This is the type of warhead used by Lancets and other anti-armor drones. The Helsing HX-2 is protypical for the anti-armor drone, without the FPV transmitter and electronics.

 

Two variants of interceptors will be required (at least), one for small fiber optic reconnaissance drones and another, more robust one for the medium reconnaissance drones. The interceptors targeting fiber-optic FPV drones can be "aimed" by a soldier using a ground based video "gun sight". The interceptor will be high speed (relatively speaking) winged drone. It will be "locked on" to the designated FPV drone target much as a Maverick missile is. The soldier does the target acquisition and recognition. The "AI" capability will be very minimal. The target is designated by a human, all the drone does is optically track it. Only a very minimal camera/CCD is needed to do this. They can also be launched "dumb" and acquire targets themselves, though the "hit rate" will undoubtedly be lower. These drones MAY have an uplink receiver to allow retargeting them dynamically. How desirable that is will be decided by testing/simulation. All the technology exists today. These drones need to be very cheap and considered like bullets. You can fire a lot of them when necessary. If they have to fly for more than a couple of minutes, it is a "miss". Their primary purpose is to deny the enemy information about our forces. Simple vehicle mounted launchers will be provided as well.

 

The above described anti-FPV interceptor drones will also be useful against attack drones. In order to provide adequate protection against attack drones a quicker and more capable video system will be required. This video system will scan the environment (using "AI") for constant bearing decreasing range (CBDR) anti-personnel/anti-armor drones, designate the target for the interceptor and launch it (or several). The important concept here is that the expensive and SWAP consuming video and "capable" AI is not in the interceptor drones. Those drones will be expended. The targeting system will not. It uses the same drones as the "manual" system does, thereby lowering costs and logistical burden on ammunition resupply. The interceptor drones probably will require a compressed gas (or possibly a small rocket) booster when used against attack drones. They require the ability to quickly get in front of the inbound threat detected late in the game. Obviously a human operator in the kill chain would be too slow in many cases.

 

Using the exact same drones for destroying both attack drones and fiber-optic FPV drones may require a decision regarding the warhead of the interceptor drone. The FPV drones can definitely be taken down by a "hit to kill" approach applied to their fiber-optic dispensing tail. The attack drones won't have that vulnerability. However, "hit to kill" may still be a viable approach. If it is, great advantages ensue. No additional weight and volume will be added to the drone. The drone will also not be capable of exploding due to mishandling. If it isn't viable, a warhead will be required. The warhead does allow less than perfect tracking of the target, so it is a tradeoff. Testing is the only way to decide. Making both kinds is also possible if necessary. That will increase costs and logistics burdens.

 

The targeting system will be available in different forms. The video system may be multi-spectral. It may contain the ubiquitous W band radar. The video system may be mounted on a multirotor platform interfaced to the ground based launchers and AI processing system via a short fiber-optic cable. This platform will have limited mobility. Its purpose is to improve the field of view for the video system and to displace it from the location of the rest of the equipment.  There will of course be a "manpack" system designed to protect an infantry platoon from anti-infantry drones. Less capability but also less weight. There will be vehicle mounted systems (probably with more optional video capabilities etc.) to protect armored vehicles. This system will be a "poor man's [Trophy System]. It will not a Javelin ATM or anything "very fast". Its detection system will be much less capable. It will however defeat anti-armor drones that are not rocket propelled. An important characteristics of this defensive system is that it is modular and easily upgradeable. New hardware and software can be provided as requirements change and sensors improve.

 

Medium range drones can cross the line of contact at high enough altitudes that they are very hard to see. The interceptors designed for fiber-optic drones may be too short range/low altitude to reach the medium range drones even when the video system can "see" them. Of course, if conditions are right the "short-range" systems may occasionally destroy a medium-range drone. Aircraft can be used to destroy reconnaissance drones if they are queued by a radar or optical picket of some type. The air defense network can handle those cases, which will account for lots of medium range reconnaissance drones. However, IMO an AI enabled medium range interceptor drone will need to be developed. They will be fairly long endurance and will mostly operate behind the line of contact. They will constitute a counter drone combat air patrol (DRONECAP). These drones can detect and destroy any enemy medium range drones they encounter. They should also be able to RTB and be recovered if no targets are detected. That will be a frequent occurrence. They also definitely have GPS.

 

These drones will need radar capabilities to detect and track enemy reconnaissance drones that have successfully penetrated the line of contact. Infrared capability is a necessity, because the drone needs to operate at night as well as daytime. Visible light video capability will also be required. These drones will not carry a warhead and will utilize "hit to kill". In general the enemy drones will have no capability to detect the threat and will be unable to evade at all.

 

These drones should also be able to receive tasking by other sensors, such as ground based air defense radar and AWACS. Similarly, if the enemy reconnaissance drone begins transmitting it can be geolocated by friendly COMINT sites. The nearest DRONECAP asset can be tasked with hunting and killing the enemy drone. It will receive updates via a similar process as AMRAAM missiles do. Since these interceptors operate in friendly airspace it is a communications permissive environment. Once the interceptor "sees" the target it autonomously tracks and kills it.

 

There are laser-based weapons being developed that can also operate against fiber-optic FPV drones. They may be viable for vehicle mounted systems but will IMO be too heavy for general use. These laser based systems will also be useful against attack drones. They also will be useful against the medium range winged reconnaissance drone.

 

IMO FPV drones using fiber optics that operate kinetically won't be developed or used. The manpower intensive nature of FPV drones operations make them inherently inferior to AI drones. If the AI works well there would be no need for them. Kinetic FPV drones also suffer a weight penalty because they must carry a warhead as well as carrying a reconnaissance capability. Their main advantage is that they can immediately attack a target of opportunity  without waiting for an attack drone to arrive. Of course, the reconnaissance drone can just follow the target until the attack drone arrives. This scenario is the reason attack drones MAY have an uplink receiver. The target coordinates may be profitably updated while in flight.

[Goose]

The anti-armor drones will have a two-stage HEAT warhead detonated by contact or by the target detection software. This is the type of warhead used by Lancets and other anti-armor drones. The Helsing HX-2 is protypical for the anti-armor drone, without the FPV transmitter and electronics.

 

Two variants of interceptors will be required (at least), one for small fiber optic reconnaissance drones and another, more robust one for the medium reconnaissance drones. The interceptors targeting fiber-optic FPV drones can be "aimed" by a soldier using a ground based video "gun sight". The interceptor will be high speed (relatively speaking) winged drone. It will be "locked on" to the designated FPV drone target much as a Maverick missile is. The soldier does the target acquisition and recognition. The "AI" capability will be very minimal. The target is designated by a human, all the drone does is optically track it. Only a very minimal camera/CCD is needed to do this. They can also be launched "dumb" and acquire targets themselves, though the "hit rate" will undoubtedly be lower. These drones MAY have an uplink receiver to allow retargeting them dynamically. How desirable that is will be decided by testing/simulation. All the technology exists today. These drones need to be very cheap and considered like bullets. You can fire a lot of them when necessary. If they have to fly for more than a couple of minutes, it is a "miss". Their primary purpose is to deny the enemy information about our forces. Simple vehicle mounted launchers will be provided as well.

 

The above described anti-FPV interceptor drones will also be useful against attack drones. In order to provide adequate protection against attack drones a quicker and more capable video system will be required. This video system will scan the environment (using "AI") for constant bearing decreasing range (CBDR) anti-personnel/anti-armor drones, designate the target for the interceptor and launch it (or several). The important concept here is that the expensive and SWAP consuming video and "capable" AI is not in the interceptor drones. Those drones will be expended. The targeting system will not. It uses the same drones as the "manual" system does, thereby lowering costs and logistical burden on ammunition resupply. The interceptor drones probably will require a compressed gas (or possibly a small rocket) booster when used against attack drones. They require the ability to quickly get in front of the inbound threat detected late in the game. Obviously a human operator in the kill chain would be too slow in many cases.

 

Using the exact same drones for destroying both attack drones and fiber-optic FPV drones may require a decision regarding the warhead of the interceptor drone. The FPV drones can definitely be taken down by a "hit to kill" approach applied to their fiber-optic dispensing tail. The attack drones won't have that vulnerability. However, "hit to kill" may still be a viable approach. If it is, great advantages ensue. No additional weight and volume will be added to the drone. The drone will also not be capable of exploding due to mishandling. If it isn't viable, a warhead will be required. The warhead does allow less than perfect tracking of the target, so it is a tradeoff. Testing is the only way to decide. Making both kinds is also possible if necessary. That will increase costs and logistics burdens.

 

The targeting system will be available in different forms. The video system may be multi-spectral. It may contain the ubiquitous W band radar. The video system may be mounted on a multirotor platform interfaced to the ground based launchers and AI processing system via a short fiber-optic cable. This platform will have limited mobility. Its purpose is to improve the field of view for the video system and to displace it from the location of the rest of the equipment.  There will of course be a "manpack" system designed to protect an infantry platoon from anti-infantry drones. Less capability but also less weight. There will be vehicle mounted systems (probably with more optional video capabilities etc.) to protect armored vehicles. This system will be a "poor man's [Trophy System]. It will not a Javelin ATM or anything "very fast". Its detection system will be much less capable. It will however defeat anti-armor drones that are not rocket propelled. An important characteristics of this defensive system is that it is modular and easily upgradeable. New hardware and software can be provided as requirements change and sensors improve.

 

Medium range drones can cross the line of contact at high enough altitudes that they are very hard to see. The interceptors designed for fiber-optic drones may be too short range/low altitude to reach the medium range drones even when the video system can "see" them. Of course, if conditions are right the "short-range" systems may occasionally destroy a medium-range drone. Aircraft can be used to destroy reconnaissance drones if they are queued by a radar or optical picket of some type. The air defense network can handle those cases, which will account for lots of medium range reconnaissance drones. However, IMO an AI enabled medium range interceptor drone will need to be developed. They will be fairly long endurance and will mostly operate behind the line of contact. They will constitute a counter drone combat air patrol (DRONECAP). These drones can detect and destroy any enemy medium range drones they encounter. They should also be able to RTB and be recovered if no targets are detected. That will be a frequent occurrence. They also definitely have GPS.

 

These drones will need radar capabilities to detect and track enemy reconnaissance drones that have successfully penetrated the line of contact. Infrared capability is a necessity, because the drone needs to operate at night as well as daytime. Visible light video capability will also be required. These drones will not carry a warhead and will utilize "hit to kill". In general the enemy drones will have no capability to detect the threat and will be unable to evade at all.

 

These drones should also be able to receive tasking by other sensors, such as ground based air defense radar and AWACS. Similarly, if the enemy reconnaissance drone begins transmitting it can be geolocated by friendly COMINT sites. The nearest DRONECAP asset can be tasked with hunting and killing the enemy drone. It will receive updates via a similar process as AMRAAM missiles do. Since these interceptors operate in friendly airspace it is a communications permissive environment. Once the interceptor "sees" the target it autonomously tracks and kills it.

 

There are laser-based weapons being developed that can also operate against fiber-optic FPV drones. They may be viable for vehicle mounted systems but will IMO be too heavy for general use. These laser based systems will also be useful against attack drones. They also will be useful against the medium range winged reconnaissance drone.

 

IMO FPV drones using fiber optics that operate kinetically won't be developed or used. The manpower intensive nature of FPV drones operations make them inherently inferior to AI drones. If the AI works well there would be no need for them. Kinetic FPV drones also suffer a weight penalty because they must carry a warhead as well as carrying a reconnaissance capability. Their main advantage is that they can immediately attack a target of opportunity  without waiting for an attack drone to arrive. Of course, the reconnaissance drone can just follow the target until the attack drone arrives. This scenario is the reason attack drones MAY have an uplink receiver. The target coordinates may be profitably updated while in flight.