The existence of weapons of mass destruction by drones exists - but it won't take effect immediately.

All over the world, after evaluating the scale of the "drone revolution," they are eagerly seeking effective ways to deal with these "flying death makers."

Author: Alexander Shevoroklad

The emergence of drones has triggered a revolution in the military field, with an impact comparable to the advent of gunpowder and nuclear weapons, at least on par with the birth of machine guns and tanks. And this transformation was completed in just a few years.

Nowadays, everyone is scrambling to find countermeasures against this cost-effective yet highly damaging weapon. Counter-drone measures can be divided into two categories: the simplest and most cost-effective, and the complex and expensive ones.

For example, small drones can be captured using ordinary fishing nets, which can be hung on trees or supported by special stands. Let's recall the anti-aircraft balloon barriers during World War II.

It is worth mentioning that Denmark has shipped nets worth 2.5 million euros to Ukraine. Sweden is also making efforts not to fall behind them.

As early as the late 20th century, American farmers began using shotguns to deal with troublesome amateur drones, even though the U.S. authorities would impose fines or imprisonment for such actions.

Low-altitude quadcopter drones can be shot down with a 7.62mm AKM automatic rifle or a 12-gauge "Magnum" hunting shotgun firing "wolf cartridges." But the problem is, hitting the drone is very difficult.

Now let's talk about conventional anti-drone defense systems. These systems come in many varieties, from the S-400 air defense missile system to the "Pantsir" combined gun-missile system. How effective are these systems against drones?

For large drones like the RQ-4 "Global Hawk" or MQ-9 "Reaper," the cost-effectiveness (KES) is very high — up to 10 or even 100. But for small, inexpensive drones, quadcopters, and suicide aircraft drones used by the Ukrainian armed forces, the cost-effectiveness is very low: 0.1, 0.001, 0.0001 or even lower.

For example, look at the combat operations in the Red Sea. The Houthi rebels mocked that the U.S. used SM-2 and SM-6 shipborne air defense missiles costing over $2 million and $6 million respectively to shoot down their drones valued between $2,000 and $4,000.

Despite suffering losses, the Houthi drones still successfully attacked maritime targets in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. On July 19, 2024, a Houthi "Yafa" drone mistakenly hit a residential building across from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. The U.S. claimed that the Houthi drones were navigating using information from Chinese commercial satellites. When the White House questioned this, China politely responded: "We know nothing about it."

The Houthis themselves have shot down at least six U.S. MQ-9 "Reaper" reconnaissance attack drones, each costing $32 million.

To shoot down these and other U.S. drones, the Houthis used a unique anti-aircraft missile produced in Iran, which the West calls the "358." What makes this missile unique? It is small in size: 2750 mm long, 152 mm in diameter, and weighs about 50 kg. Its maximum altitude exceeds 12 kilometers, and its range varies from 10 to 100 kilometers depending on the mission.

This missile can be called a "hovering drone" because it can wait for its target in the air for more than 15 minutes. The "358" missile almost doesn't require ground equipment and can be launched from any rudimentary launcher. This missile is an intermediate product between a military self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system and a portable anti-aircraft missile.

In addition, nearby fighter jets can simply release fuel to create turbulence to bring down an MQ-9 or RQ-4, and in extreme cases, even break the sound barrier. By the way, on March 14, 2023, a Russian Su-27 fighter jet brought down a "Reaper" drone over the Black Sea by releasing fuel.

Therefore, existing conventional means are sufficient to destroy large drones; there are no technical problems, only a lack of political will.

However, using conventional means to shoot down small drones is a costly task. Thus, journalists and scientists began praising lasers, considering them potentially ideal anti-drone weapons.

Without a doubt, lasers are excellent tools for guiding missiles and 152-155mm guided artillery shells. But I must point out that the range of these munitions is 30-50 kilometers, while laser illumination of targets requires distances within 3-4 kilometers.

Laser is a good space weapon. Powerful heavy lasers and one or more nuclear reactors can be deployed in orbit. The key point is, there is no atmosphere in space.

In the summer of 1980, the secret experimental ship "Dickson" used the "Ida" system to fire a laser cannon east of Feodosia, hitting a target. Temperature sensors installed on the target recorded a sudden temperature change upon impact. It turned out that the efficiency of the laser beam was only 5%.

Most of the laser energy was consumed by the evaporation of water vapor over the sea surface. Nevertheless, the shooting results were considered excellent.

After upgrading, the "Ida" system could burn through the armor shell of an airplane at a distance of 400 meters. By the way, the generators inside the "Dickson" (with a displacement of over 9,000 tons) were powerful enough to illuminate a regional center or even a provincial center.

On September 9, 1985, at the White Sands test range, a 2-megawatt "Miracle" laser burned a hole in the thin fuel tank of a "Titan-2" intercontinental ballistic missile from 1 kilometer away in 12 seconds. I must note that the air transparency at this test range in New Mexico is almost perfect throughout the year.

The experimental video was broadcast worldwide, and people celebrated this achievement. But what happened in the next 40 years? Supposedly, someone "somewhere occasionally" used a laser to shoot down a drone, but there was no actual evidence.

Only in July 2019 did Turkey display photos of a related country's drone being shot down in Libya, allegedly by a Turkish laser device. Before that, this drone had already been fired at with "Pechora" air defense missiles.

Therefore, regardless of personal preferences, the most effective weapon against drones remains artillery. In any case, its cost-effectiveness is clearly higher than various types of air defense missiles and hypothetical lasers.

From 1943 to 1945, in the occupied Channel Islands of Guernsey, Germany's four 305mm gun batteries had interesting anti-aircraft firing. By the way, these guns were Russian, from the battleship "Alexander III," which was seized by Wrangel in 1920 and taken to Bizerte.

When the Germans used 12-inch guns for anti-aircraft firing, they adopted the "barrage" tactic - detonating four shells along the diagonal of a 500-meter cube and one shell in the center. Any aircraft caught in this "death cube" had little chance of survival. However, the British did not launch a major air raid on Guernsey, so only a few aircraft (one confirmed hit) were hit by the barrage.

In the early 1950s, the "barrage" tactic became obsolete. Aircraft speeds reached 1,000 kilometers per hour and later even 2,000 kilometers per hour. But now, the cruising speed of suicide drones is 100-150 kilometers per hour.

Nowadays, 12-inch guns are no longer equipped in units, but the main caliber of self-propelled guns in Russia and the West is 152-155 millimeters. Simply install an anti-drone radar on a self-propelled gun and integrate it into the artillery fire control system. Then use shells with preformed fragments and remote fuses to shoot at drones.

I first proposed the concept of an "anti-drone radar." This is a radar that does not use the Doppler effect (ED). Air defense radars with Doppler effect work well for high-speed targets but are inefficient for targets traveling at 30-100 kilometers per hour. So how do radars with Doppler effect detect hovering helicopters? They don't detect the hovering helicopter itself but rather its rapidly rotating rotor blades.

Literature provides good descriptions of the feasibility of manufacturing non-Doppler radars. In my opinion, the ideal self-propelled gun system for dealing with drones is the 76mm gun (at least based on the AK-176 naval gun). This gun should be equipped with an anti-drone radar and a dual detection system with an optical channel.

The automated fire control system should receive data on the initial velocity of the shell measured by sensors at the muzzle, as well as data on the detonation time of the shell determined by sensors installed inside the barrel, instead of setting the detonation time online. By the way, such guns already exist and are even produced in small batches.

There are only two ways to completely win the war against drones. The first method is to destroy or disable drones more cheaply by laser beams or strong X-rays, severing their connection with satellites and rendering the satellites useless.

The second method is to thoroughly defeat the country launching the drones and occupy its territory.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7514132905082257932/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your opinions by clicking the "Top/Downvote" buttons below.