Posted on 08/17/2013 2:18:34 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Killer drones are getting lighter, smaller and cheaper in order to keep their place on the battlefield as defense budgets are cut and as the U.S. military pulls out of Afghanistan. The latest twist: “kamikaze” drones that blow up along with their intended target.
Two devices were on display at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) trade show in Washington, DC, this week: Textron System’s Battlehawk and Aerovironment’s Switchblade. Both are hand-launched devices that can be carried in a small backpack.
The Battlehawk is made of carbon-fiber wings that curl up into a 22-inch tube launcher. The 5.5-pound device is then flown via an Android-based software app on a smartphone or tablet device to its intended target. The soldier can turn on a video camera, arm the grenade in the nose of the drone and watch as the truck, tank or unfortunate bad guy is terminated.
“It’s a squad-level loitering munition,” said Cathy Loughman, Textron senior program manager. “The soldier is given a target, punches it into the tablet, within a minute and a half, they peel the top off and press a couple buttons on the tablet and off it goes.”
The Battlehawk runs on a small battery-powered propeller. It also has a geo-location device that allows it to follow a target for 30 minutes before the soldier can chose between Abort or Attack modes.
“If there is a sniper three kilometers away,” Loughman said. “This can hit it without calling in air support.”
Once the Afghan war winds down, Textron hopes to convert the Battlehawk into domestic law enforcement device that could carry a bigger battery to fly longer, or even something like smoke grenades for crowd dispersal. The device is going into more testing this fall before a tryout with troops. Drones Could Rescue Drowning Vehicles
Aerovironment has developed a similar grenade-carrying device already being used by the Army called the Switchblade, which also weighs 5.5 pounds, but only has a 10-minute flight time.
Like many other drone firms at this week’s show, Aerovironment trying to determine when drones will allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration be flying over U.S. airspace. The agency has been given a 2015 deadline by President Obama and Congress to figure out how integrate them with human-piloted aircraft.
Many firms are also looking overseas for new markets. This week Aerovironment signed an agreement to build U.S. drones in India for the Indian defense forces. Representatives for other firms at the show say they are preparing to sell drones to U.S. rivals China and Russia.
“We are preparing for that time (2015) and looking for new opportunities,” said Aerovironment’s Dave Heidel.
Or explosives to take out the local Tea Party/militia/Christianist cell. Don’t think so? Wait and see.
“The 5.5-pound device is then flown via an Android-based software app...”
What could possibly go wrong?
(D’oh!)
These devices will end “air superiority.” They’re too small for a fighter plane to see and they may be too numerous for a defense system to stop. They will also end the battlefield supremacy of the tank. No, not by attacking the tanks, but by attacking the tank’s fuel trucks and ammunition carrier vehicles. Neither of those are armored or (from air attack by RPV) even defended. I think the US Army understands this and they have tried repeatedly to cancel the tank builds. Congress has several times allocated additional funds outside the Army’s regular budget to build tanks they Army doesn’t want and can’t get to the battlefield in places like Afghanistan.
Can they be jammed? A remote control drone that can be hijacked is worthless.
The word “suicide” is overly dramatic. Is a “guided missile” a “suicide missile”? It, too, self destructs when it reaches the target.
Thanks LibWhacker.
1. If they aren’t autonomous, they can be jammed.
2. If they are autonmous, they can be spoofed.
3. Artillery has always been around and has not ended air superiority.
4. Limited range is going to be a big factor.
5. Anything that small is going to have a less than spectacular seeker system. If its completely visual, then its very limited. Trying to find vehicles with your eyes from airplanes isn’t the easiest thing to do.
So, I don’t think it will all that revolutionary.
Note to self...add 3.5” Turkey loads to Wal Mart list.
I understand the current limitations. But at the rate technology is advancing they will not be limitations for long. The tanks cost $45 million per copy. An Israeli defense publication circulated where I worked on the tanks at General Dynamics stated that the Israeli Army planned on taking all 1500 Merkavas out of service and replacing them with something that resembled an RPV. The battlefield is changing. I expect more of what we’re seeing in Syria on youtube. The Russians were decimated when they took their tanks into cities. So, the range on the fuel tanker killer won’t need to be that great. Granted, if we’re fighting in a big open desert, then the tank is favored. But I don’t expect much of that type engagement in the future.
Pull!
The Right to Bear Drones.
agreed
kamikazee drones?
the horror,
the horror
Tanks are far from invulnerable and speed and numbers certainly have their merits, but there remains some issues with replacing the MBT:
1. Reactive armor is very effective against incoming shaped charge weapons, thus a cannon is required.
2. 120mm sabo rounds will penetrate most any vehicle and arrive faster than a wire guided missile, making it a deadly threat to other vehicles.
3. MBTs appear to be very vulnerable, until your enemy has better MBTs than you, then they are a tremendous threat.
4. The ubiquitous RPGs were supposed to put an end to MBTs, but that hasn’t really happened, as mixed infrantry-armor tactics remain effective.
But I will certainly agree that being overly reliant on any one weapon system is a bad idea, and that all weapon systems require mutual support from others, or they are quickly destroyed.
I think you are right that the mix will change in favor of lighter vehicles.
“But I will certainly agree that being overly reliant on any one weapon system is a bad idea, and that all weapon systems require mutual support from others, or they are quickly destroyed.”
If you look at the many Syrian youtube videos you see that they’re sending in the tanks with no infantry support. They appear to be losing some of them to charges placed by somebody running up behind and just placing it. Crazy use of a tank. But, I’m guessing they don’t have sufficient infantry to support them.
Yes, I can see a tank like vehicle in the future, just not one that weighs 70 tons. You can’t get them to the battlefield unless they’re pre-positioned there. Battlefields such as Afghanistan are not tank country.
We have satellites that can read a piece of paper and give exact coordinates for a target anywhere. Even with every spectrum jammed, a drone out of jamming range can autonomously come in and hit that target once it has coordinates. With such precise and tiny “dead reckoning” sensors today, it doesn’t even need GPS on the battlefield.
Any target anywhere destroyed with a tiny undetectable drone at the click of a mouse. Even complete real time tracking of moving targets in most situations. That’s quite revolutionary IMO.
FU, Textron.
When someone designs a drone that is precise enough to fly into the barrel of a tank and release a few pellets of expanding foam, the game will be over. That would be the same as having a squib load in a rifle or handgun.
Someone pointed out something similar, suggesting they fly a flock into the path of an aircraft and seek the engine intakes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3015719/posts?page=6
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.