Quadcopter Deterrent

[You_are_a_cunt]

Give me $300 and a sack of potatoes and I can save a fortune on Patriot missles...

[Prysin]

On 15/03/2017 at 6:34 PM, ivan134 said:

The military is clearly underfunded.

No, missiles are expensive because they arent made in chinese sweatshops. I promise, if you made that missile in a sweatshop it would cost 30k, not 3m.

[Prysin]

5 hours ago, revsilverspine said:

Give me $300 and a sack of potatoes and I can save a fortune on Patriot missles...

What about all the starving children in africa, You could feed a whole country on that sack of potatos

[You_are_a_cunt]

25 minutes ago, Prysin said:

What about all the starving children in africa, You could feed a whole country on that sack of potatos

I was going to make potato salad =\

[PCMasterDebater]

8 hours ago, Centurius said:

I mean sure, if you phrase it as a $3 million missile vs a $200 drone it seems like a waste. If however you count the possible damage said drone could do, the image might look different. Against ISIS we have already seen cheap drones used to kill soldiers, the damage even one drone with a bomb could do against soldiers and equipment could justify the cost. 

 

That being said, there should be research into a cheaper solution, but things aren't black and white.

Really? You're over exaggerating what a drone can do. The best they can do with one is fly it high speed into the side of a building and break a window.

 

Or maybe. Fly one into high speed into the side of someones head and cut them... I don't see it. They pose very little danger.

 

Beyond hitting things, they can be used for surveillance, however that is already possible in so many other ways. A quadcopter isn't changing much.

[Centurius]

17 hours ago, PCMasterDebater said:

Really? You're over exaggerating what a drone can do. The best they can do with one is fly it high speed into the side of a building and break a window.

 

Or maybe. Fly one into high speed into the side of someones head and cut them... I don't see it. They pose very little danger.

 

Beyond hitting things, they can be used for surveillance, however that is already possible in so many other ways. A quadcopter isn't changing much.

Did you miss the several dozen news articles in the past few months about ISIS strapping bombs to drones?

[NumLock21]

On 3/15/2017 at 1:16 PM, Joelbanks5 said:

lol is there a video?

 

[DildorTheDecent]

On 15/03/2017 at 6:25 PM, Dylanc1500 said:

Go hard or go home I suppose. I wonder if there is actually a shelf life on those. I mean if it was about to be dismantled then you might as well use it. Someone could educate me a little on military stock.

There's a website page that just says they've extended the shelf life. 

 

But most bullets and whatnot do have shelf life. https://www.army.mil/article/156942/Army_researchers_extend_missile_system_shelf_life

[Trik'Stari]

All you really need is a 12ga. with Flechette rounds in it.

[PCMasterDebater]

11 hours ago, Centurius said:

Did you miss the several dozen news articles in the past few months about ISIS strapping bombs to drones?

 $200-$300 drones have limited carrying capacity. They can't lift more then 1 pound off the ground let alone do a extended flyby to hit a known target. Factor in weather, wind, etc. further illustrates the unlikely hood of $200-$300 drones dropping bombs on targets. These news stories are greatly exaggerated agenda topics used for scare tactics to get citizens to agree to bolstered military spending.. If you don't see that then you're being blind to reality.

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, PCMasterDebater said:

 $200-$300 drones have limited carrying capacity. They can't lift more then 1 pound off the ground let alone do a extended flyby to hit a known target. Factor in weather, wind, etc. further illustrates the unlikely hood of $200-$300 drones dropping bombs on targets. These news stories are greatly exaggerated agenda topics used for scare tactics to get citizens to agree to bolstered military spending.. If you don't see that then you're being blind to reality.

You do realize that

 

A) custom built and modified drones are a thing and can fairly trivially be designed to carry much more weight than off the shelf consumer drones.

 

B) even with a stock standard drone, 1lb of explosive can cause a *lot* of damage, depending on what kind of explosive it is.

[SansVarnic]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You do realize that

<snip>

B) even with a stock standard drone, 1lb of explosive can cause a *lot* of damage, depending on what kind of explosive it is.

Ilb of C4 will destroy most large house sized buildings.

 

 

This will be useful and better than a patriot missle in some cases.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/03/skynet.html

[dalekphalm]

On 3/16/2017 at 11:06 PM, Centurius said:

I mean sure, if you phrase it as a $3 million missile vs a $200 drone it seems like a waste. If however you count the possible damage said drone could do, the image might look different. Against ISIS we have already seen cheap drones used to kill soldiers, the damage even one drone with a bomb could do against soldiers and equipment could justify the cost. 

 

That being said, there should be research into a cheaper solution, but things aren't black and white.

Agreed - while yes, using a Patriot Missile is overkill, the value of the drone itself is immaterial - it's about the damage the drone could cause. And I'm not talking about the drone being capable of, say, destroying a city block.

 

But rather, let's say a drone with 1 pound of C4 explosive decides to try and take out a critical component of a Nuclear Reactor - even if we assume the reactor would still be safe from meltdown, the economic damage from a sudden power outage could be widespread.

 

Or another example: A drone flies into an airport w/ said explosives, and takes out the cockpit of a fully loaded Airbus passenger jet right before landing or takeoff.

On 3/17/2017 at 7:28 AM, PCMasterDebater said:

Really? You're over exaggerating what a drone can do. The best they can do with one is fly it high speed into the side of a building and break a window.

 

Or maybe. Fly one into high speed into the side of someones head and cut them... I don't see it. They pose very little danger.

 

Beyond hitting things, they can be used for surveillance, however that is already possible in so many other ways. A quadcopter isn't changing much.

See above - 1 pound of explosive can be devastating if used in a tactical manner. Hell, even the risk of assassination of an important US/Allied official is a risk.

On 3/18/2017 at 0:16 PM, PCMasterDebater said:

 $200-$300 drones have limited carrying capacity. They can't lift more then 1 pound off the ground let alone do a extended flyby to hit a known target. Factor in weather, wind, etc. further illustrates the unlikely hood of $200-$300 drones dropping bombs on targets. These news stories are greatly exaggerated agenda topics used for scare tactics to get citizens to agree to bolstered military spending.. If you don't see that then you're being blind to reality.

See above. The risk is not high, but the risk exists.

On 3/18/2017 at 2:33 PM, Sniperfox47 said:

You do realize that

 

A) custom built and modified drones are a thing and can fairly trivially be designed to carry much more weight than off the shelf consumer drones.

 

B) even with a stock standard drone, 1lb of explosive can cause a *lot* of damage, depending on what kind of explosive it is.

Agreed.

 

@PCMasterDebater the point is not that we should equip everything with Patriot Missiles against drones, just that in some situations, if other anti-drone measures are not available, you use what you've got.

 

We SHOULD be developing smaller, highly accurate, and cost effective ways of taking out drones. Sometimes radio jammers aren't the solution. Sometimes you need to physically destroy the drone. We should be developing a weapon that limits the risk to the surroundings that can accomplish this role. One that doesn't cost $3m USD would be nice.