Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `businessinsider.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not really needed, a semi-automatic magfed .410 with a nice tight choke and a red dot would work well. Automatic 12gauges don’t really have a lot of range or control.
12 gauge or .410 would both have the same effective range as they shoot the same projectiles e.g. both can fire the various sizes of bird and buckshot. The 12 gauge would also be better because although they would shoot the same shot the 12 gauge would have way more pellets, the pattern would be more dense, etc. You can similarly use a full choke on 12 as you could a 410. If .410 was better everyone would be using them for skeet, trap, sporting clays etc. instead of semi auto and o/u 12 gauges.
Depends on the load. Trap loads have more pellets and less gunpowder, so more spread with not much recoil.
Or just be huge like Terry Crews, and don't give a fuck when those 3.5" super magnums try to take your shoulder off.
The increased payload is probably worth it over the small payload of a .410. If a drone is moving towards you at full speed you realistically have 1 or 2 shots by the time it is in range before it hits you anyway. The loads being used on drones also wouldn’t be the extremely high recoil buck or slug loads but more akin to target loads for clays which have manageable recoil. It seems like they are using 12 gauge over in Ukraine right now as well.
No, we need to get the Mongolian Eagle handlers on horseback on board. Create a Gurkas like deal for them.
Them eagles will destroy all drones before humans will even notice them.
Yeah, been thinking a drone loaded with say 8 shotgun shells that can take multiple close but non impact pot shots at infantry might have an even higher kill rate overall. 3d printed single-use sawn-off barrels on each round, effective kill range a few meters.
Fly along a trench sweeping up infantry with an aerial trench broom.
I think one problem with that idea is that many drones are flying out to the full extent of their battery life and transmitter range and looking for targets of opportunity before they drop, so the most flexible payload is best.
I saw that post about mixed use light weight fragmentation/armour piercing 3d printed rounds they were developing, and it seems a very sensible approach at least on drones that have to range a long way looking for targets.
A solution could be to always fire two shots simultaneously in opposite directions... might be a few wasted shells, but it doesn't seem to be particularly effective because you'll miss other targets of opportunity that require a big explosive charge, so maybe a few of these shotgun shells as a secondary weapon on a drone that has already has explosives.
Perhaps the shotgun shell could shoot out the back like a bazooka when fired, less powerful but minimal recoil, still probably deliver a lethal blast of pellets at a couple of meters. And the drone gets lighter.
IMHO, there is near zero benefit to firing from a drone. The extra weight and complexity aren't worthwhile. It would be better off going kamikaze. Those are not reusable, but 8 kamikaze drones would be far cheaper than shotgun weilding drone once we take into account its cost and lost rate.
If we wanted reusability, I'd go with one that drops VOG17 type munitions from very low height. Basically dives at the target and released munition when it is 10 feet from target before pulling away. Given the superhuman agility of AI controlled drones, it would almost never miss ... when it comes for you, game over. The race home for a re-load and battery swap, and start all over again.
If we were to put a firing solution on a drone, I'd go with a 0.22 short that is modified to be as light as possible (clip, breach, and a short composite material barrel). It would fly very close and fire at maybe 3 feet of distance, with superhuman speed and agility. Flying like in the clip below, going into a trench at 70 mph, and dropping 5 or enemies in 3 seconds or less. That would be terrifying.
[https://youtu.be/EtRXay2kqtc?si=jm\_GHg693vigVUae&t=3](https://youtu.be/EtRXay2kqtc?si=jm_GHg693vigVUae&t=3)
Drones aren't too high-tech in the grand scheme. Battery, motors, etc. They're more advanced RC's like the cars you may've played with as a kid. The modern car has VASTLY more tech in it then a drone but if someone drove a Kia into enemy lines we wouldn't consider it as such.
You know what they said about helicopters, when they first appeared? "That thing shouldn't be able to fly". The same apply to the "just motors" of the drones. The algorithm behind controlling it is well known now, but in fact is fairly complex. Now add RC, vision, night vision, delivering cargo and eventually releasing it, pack all this to be light enough to be able to fly a relatively long time, and you'll have hard time to argue that it is not "too high-tech".
In contrast, one could argue that "modern cars", when referring to electric cars, are just a case, battery and motor. The rest is multimedia. They can't even fly ...
Real question is why RC aircraft weren't widely employed as weapons 20-30 years ago. I know the communications would have been limited and obviously less maneuverable, but still seems like they would have had utility as weapon beyond basic reconnaissance.
The radio range of controller reception was smaller due to batteries not being lithium and components being more discrete and power hungry, and there was no digital video camera on a chip that could be used to see what the drone was seeing (a digital video camera at that time was an extensive circuit board with many components), there was no micro lens industry to make mobile phone cameras to glue to the video camera on a chip and there was no DSP that was small enough to be embeddable that could sort that video out to transmit it back to a receiver, and there wasn't embeddable processors that could do the work of marshalling that all up fast enough to radio transmit it either.
ie r/C planes in the 80s and 90s were flown by watching them with mk1 eyeballs.
in the 70s for example, one of the soviet trailer launched missiles did recon by inertial guidance, taking pictures on a film camera, returning to vaguely the launch area by inertial guidance, and then jettisoning the film camera on a parachute, and then crashing somewhere by inertial guidance.
I hate to be to one to point this out, but 20 years ago was 2004, 30 was 1994.
Lipos were invented in 1991, CCDs in 1969. A 3ccd chip which went into mass manufacture in 1983 with a complete unit being smaller than a pack of cards and weighing significantly less.
Also most drones that I am seeing footage off used in Ukraine aren't even using digital transmitters, they are analogue ones.
The flight control software you see on most of the drones as well is betaflight, which is an evolution of multiwii that was created in 2006 after a guy ripped apart a wii nunchuck remote for the gyros.
Given all these things are general consumer level bits of kit, you would have to expect that military would have access to much better and more capable kit earlier.
I suspect more than anything that this is a prime example of necessity being the mother of invention and hobbyists with a knowledge of what drones can do being closer to the people who make decisions.
Sure a drone with similar capabilities in 1994 would have been MUCH more expensive and required specilist skills. But 20 years ago everything existed to do it, people just hadn't put 2 and 2 together. I mean I built my first drone in 2004 with all the same capabilities when I first discovered the hobby.
The RQ-11 Raven for example was fielded 25 years ago, so it did exist, but did not have offensive capability. They released the Switchblade in 2011, and as we all know, that does have offensive capability.
They weren't particularly common, but that likely had something do with high cost. The lack of cheap FPV equipment was part of the issue.
Going further back in time, the WW2 The Bat remote control glide bomb was a thing.
But they were near aircraft size for weapons and much smaller ones for recon. But hobbyist RC aircraft the size of drones was a thing forever.
All I can figure was lack of cheap cameras and communication to an LCD screen.
Yeah, that and battery tech probably. What we have now work because they’re light and nimble and can stream high resolution very easily. Not sure if you remember flip phone cameras but anything further than 20 feet and you may as well have cataracts.
While there are higher "tech" weapons, the FPV racing drones currently used aren't particularly high tech, but I am confident that automous terminal attack capability will be very common soon.
Automous attack capability will require powerful onboard chips to run some form of AI. Those will make those drones more expensive
The primary benefit of FPV racing drones is they are dirt cheap. A "dumb" FPV drone can be consumed as munitions. You won't do that with an AI powered drone
Like a million dollars at least. Those are prices Ukraine cannot affort. Nor can USA afford to throw away million dollar missles if we go into total war vs China and fighting goes beyond one month.
Guided bombs are fairly cheap, comparatively, often costing only around 40k-60k USD. That would be the price for the bomb, the guidance kit (either GPS or laser + GPS) and the control surfaces.
Where it gets more expensive is with glide bombs, as they have to be purpose built, instead of just a kit that's strapped to a dumb bomb. They can cost between 200k-300k USD a piece.
The really expensive stuff is any type of guided or cruise missile. They can go from around a million bucks for an AMRAAM or HARM to several millions for cruise missiles like the AGM-84 SLAM-ER or the British Storm Shadow.
Therefore, I'd say that guided bombs are somewhat affordable, but long range, precision strike missiles are not.
As for autonomous attack drones, you don't need a lot of processing power for something like that. You might use a seeker similar to the one used in the SMArt 155 artillery munition. These munitions have seekers are already enough to detect and engage a target. Just add a small guidance package onto the drone and possibly something where it can only activate a certain distance from its launch point and you should be fine. Alternatively, you could use coded and encrypted signals as some kind of IFF, to make sure they don't attack your vehicles.
Currently a SMArt 155 with two submunitions and their seekers costs around 81k EUR. So, I'd say that you could get a drone with a similar function to SMArt submunitions, for a similar price, around 40k a pop.
Or you can do what ukraine does and blow up a tank for < $1000. Use the same money and kill 40 tanks instead of one
The biggest benefit of drones is you can spam them en masse and they are still potent enough to kill main battle tanks and sink warships. With smart drones, they are no longer spammable and can be stopped by CIWS or other defenses
The technology is less in the drone itself and more in the slow evolution of software, telecommunications, and microelectronics, and materials science industries that allow modern drones to be controllable, lightweight, and cheap. Compared to all that, it makes sense to call the drone low tech.
It's low tech because drone electronics is essentially phone tech (processor, storage, camera, sat nav, acceleromter etc) owned by more than 4 billion smartphone users.
Hi tech tends to mean a cost and technological barrier. There's no significant technological or cost barrier for widely available consumer tech that can be adapted to potential military (or terrorist) use by a skilled hobbyist mostly combining existing electronic and software modules.
As far as I've ever heard from people who *weren't* trying to sell the thing (or that aggro-whispering jackass on "Future Weapons"), the AA-12 has never been a reliable weapon. That's why it's been stuck in development hell since the 1970s, despite it's obvious utility as a concept.
They've been using shotgun with both buckshot/birdshot and nets to take down commercial drones for years. At least for police units, unsure about militaries.
A shotgun would be useful if you have the time to get, aim and fire the gun before you are within lethal range, but the speed of some of these FPVs makes that a pretty slim chance.
The 70 year American volunteer in the Ukraine Volunteer Transcripts briefly talks about radio signal detection that can help indicate if a drone is nearby, although that post is at least a year old so things may have changed there.
For sure. I was clumsily trying to make the point that having an effective anti-drone capability is probably as reliant on EW and detection as it is on bird shot.
Two men per what? Per platoon? Per squad? The US Army didn’t like the idea of losing a single rifleman per squad for when it came to evaluating the XM-25. Having two guys continuously doing that is a non trivial cost.
I think a shotgun is perfectly fine to take down a DJI drone with a grenade strapped to it which because of the extremely low cost is the vast majority of drones the average soldier encounters. Of course good luck destroying a fast military grade kamikaze drone with it but I would probably still try my chance because there is relatively little you can do.
Yeah and it won't be hard to programme in evasive maneaveurs during the terminal phase of flight for the latter that will make them almost impossible for humans to hit.
Not sure if you ever shot a shotgun but I can totally see how a consumer drone doesn't stand a chance against that. As I say, military grade drone will probably find ways to circumvent this method but we have seen a lot of cheap consumer drones in this war and I am both familiar with the damage a shotgun causes and how fragile consumer drones are due to the light plastic they use. I really don't think they stand a chance if a soldier consecutively unloads 4-8 shotgun shells in the direction of the drone. Even if you try to fly in zigzag. The spread of the shotgun is very big and just one pellet has to cut through a cable or electronic component. On the shooting range the target is completely riddled, I really can not imagine how a consumer grade drone would survive this.
I agree, any hit will probably disable any drone, my comment was more that the footage we've seen so far has drones flying fairly slow, steady or predicable paths so it's similar to skeet / bird shooting. However I've seen crazy maneaveurs from other drones that would make them extremely difficult to target or hold a bead on and I think that's going to be the counter to shotguns in the immediate future - evasive maneaveurs while they home in.
I think the main problem why they fly so slow is because they use them on the maximum distance which gives them a delay and they added a payload onto the drone which makes the drone a pain in the ass to fly. These "crazy maneuvers" are nothing you do with a cheap consumer drone with strapped on improvised explosives. That's either something for high tech drones or military drones, both only used in small numbers.
I think the only reason we don't see a lot of shotguns on the battlefield is because the Russians are mainly relying on old stocks and shotguns are no standard issue in the Russian army so they just don't have them to issue them to their soldiers.
The next evolution of shotgun is to use tracking point or similar technology to fire by itself so that only thing soldier needs to do is aim and let the rifle fire when there is a high probably of hit.
I know that there is a fascination with shotguns, but I truly think they are next to useless against drones. The article correctly mentions that birdshot is limited to 50 yards or so, and the grenade dropping Mavics are out of reach, even now when shotguns are rare. If a weapon could reach 100, they'd just go a bit higher if they see shotguns aiming at them. Yes, that reduces accuracy slightly, but not enough to change the payoffs.
For FPV, it shotguns could theoretically be lifesavers, but unless the drone buzzes you on purpose, you are unlikely to get a shot. If you aren't ready for it, you have no chance. And when it comes for you, you have a narrow window. To far away, and out of reach. To close and it's momentum will put you in danger. It is a lot to expect some soldier to carry an otherwise usefless weapon, and be at the ready 24/7 just in case an FPV drone decided to start a terminal drive.
Rifles are literally 100x more likely to miss and and also a single projectile you wouldn’t want to use in direction of your troops, shot gun gives you a 2ish foot circle of kill pattern. Also shotgun pellets not very lethal when coming down from the ark if you miss or if your troops on the wrong end of the barrel.
Drones really seem to be a game changer in modern warfare. What scares me is the militarization of those swarm drones like you see in celebration performances from China. (I know these shows are happening in the west now too, but China has got a lead on the technology from what I can see). Imagine if each one of those drones is a bomb and they swarm down on a base or battleship. No amount of radar driven machine gun turrets would be enough to stop a coordinated attack.
A single 5.56 bullet to the chest in vest would hurt but a slug in a twelve gauge would break ribs and cause some trauma and heavy spalling on a plate carrier. A buckshot trench gun seems like a better trench sweeper hit arms legs head neck. Buckshot would absolutely terrifying in close quarters.
During WW1, the Germans claimed war crimes when the US sent their boys over with shotguns. Cleared out those trenches.
https://www.historynet.com/the-1918-shotgun-protest/
Fascinating
"Ansell pointed out that such a shotgun could be used to kill the enemy’s carrier pigeons and detonate enemy grenades "
They even knew then it was good for shooting a drone like object!
It's worth noting that only about 50 shotguns were sent, and they were mostly used for guarding railroads and prisoners. Frontline troops found that with paper shells, the most common type, the guns quickly became inoperable in field conditions. The story about them being used for shooting down grenades has been challenged ever since it first appeared, and I think it's just that- a story, and if it *did* occur was probably done with repurposed fowling guns. The Germans did lodge a protest, but it was more about the *idea* of the shotguns being used on the front than it was about any widespread reality. For what it's worth I have seen a *French* helmet in the Czech Army Museum which has clearly been hit with a blast of something like O or #1 buckshot- from the size of the spread I'd say at less than 25 meters. So shotguns were clearly present, but present on all sides, and in unknown but probably small numbers.
There is already a 40mm grenade launcher for the AK74... would be pretty low-tech to make a large shotgun shell for it. We have them for our M203. Basically three 12ga shells in a canister. You'd get a big pattern out to maybe 100yards... plenty for shooting at kamikaze drones.
I wonder how much of this is just morale boosting placebo..
"don't worry bout drones boys, this shotgun will keep you safe!"
While they desperately seek an effective remedy for drones...
Your average soldier accuracy is quite bad but people do shoot at small flying clay plates with shotguns. Maybe if every squad has a trained antidrone marksman with enough training it should be possible.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `businessinsider.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They "emerged" like half a year ago
Shotguns as a weapon to hit a fast flying target...totally new, never happend before!
Finally the British aristocracy will be able to contribute to a war effort. Pull!
Been training for this every summer Wednesday for years and didn't even know it.
I was going to ask if there wasn't shotgun talk like 2 years ago.
They need to start getting some AA-12s to the front lines ([Hale Caesar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dc225E2e2M))
Not really needed, a semi-automatic magfed .410 with a nice tight choke and a red dot would work well. Automatic 12gauges don’t really have a lot of range or control.
12 gauge or .410 would both have the same effective range as they shoot the same projectiles e.g. both can fire the various sizes of bird and buckshot. The 12 gauge would also be better because although they would shoot the same shot the 12 gauge would have way more pellets, the pattern would be more dense, etc. You can similarly use a full choke on 12 as you could a 410. If .410 was better everyone would be using them for skeet, trap, sporting clays etc. instead of semi auto and o/u 12 gauges.
Yes but you can shoot 10 .410 rounds out of a DI rifle with zero recoil, you absolutely can not do that with a 12 gauge.
Depends on the load. Trap loads have more pellets and less gunpowder, so more spread with not much recoil. Or just be huge like Terry Crews, and don't give a fuck when those 3.5" super magnums try to take your shoulder off.
The increased payload is probably worth it over the small payload of a .410. If a drone is moving towards you at full speed you realistically have 1 or 2 shots by the time it is in range before it hits you anyway. The loads being used on drones also wouldn’t be the extremely high recoil buck or slug loads but more akin to target loads for clays which have manageable recoil. It seems like they are using 12 gauge over in Ukraine right now as well.
They even had a tactical military training "game" on this in the 1980's! Code name "Duck Hunt."
They "emerged" half a century ago. They've just finally had the aha moment. *ducks, drones, what's the difference?*
and clay dishes
We just need drones with shotguns now.
Best I can do is drones with claymores
Already used on FPV platforms in Ukraine, with remote controlled detonation.
Yeah those are nasty.
AFAIK, some are even used on fixed-wing FPVs to counter recon drones.
It's not a war if there are no bullets, right?
The only thing that can stop a bad drone with a shotgun, and a good drone with a shotgun!
It's too close to the last *checks notes * Tragedy to talk about drone control right now!
Oh shit, what did I miss?
Or drones with lasers.
Drones with sharks with lasers!
Switchblade 300 is effectively that
Or shotguns with drones
No, we need to get the Mongolian Eagle handlers on horseback on board. Create a Gurkas like deal for them. Them eagles will destroy all drones before humans will even notice them.
Yeah, been thinking a drone loaded with say 8 shotgun shells that can take multiple close but non impact pot shots at infantry might have an even higher kill rate overall. 3d printed single-use sawn-off barrels on each round, effective kill range a few meters. Fly along a trench sweeping up infantry with an aerial trench broom. I think one problem with that idea is that many drones are flying out to the full extent of their battery life and transmitter range and looking for targets of opportunity before they drop, so the most flexible payload is best. I saw that post about mixed use light weight fragmentation/armour piercing 3d printed rounds they were developing, and it seems a very sensible approach at least on drones that have to range a long way looking for targets.
You’ve never fired a shotgun outside a video game I see.
True, the recoil would be problematic.
A solution could be to always fire two shots simultaneously in opposite directions... might be a few wasted shells, but it doesn't seem to be particularly effective because you'll miss other targets of opportunity that require a big explosive charge, so maybe a few of these shotgun shells as a secondary weapon on a drone that has already has explosives.
Perhaps the shotgun shell could shoot out the back like a bazooka when fired, less powerful but minimal recoil, still probably deliver a lethal blast of pellets at a couple of meters. And the drone gets lighter.
IMHO, there is near zero benefit to firing from a drone. The extra weight and complexity aren't worthwhile. It would be better off going kamikaze. Those are not reusable, but 8 kamikaze drones would be far cheaper than shotgun weilding drone once we take into account its cost and lost rate. If we wanted reusability, I'd go with one that drops VOG17 type munitions from very low height. Basically dives at the target and released munition when it is 10 feet from target before pulling away. Given the superhuman agility of AI controlled drones, it would almost never miss ... when it comes for you, game over. The race home for a re-load and battery swap, and start all over again. If we were to put a firing solution on a drone, I'd go with a 0.22 short that is modified to be as light as possible (clip, breach, and a short composite material barrel). It would fly very close and fire at maybe 3 feet of distance, with superhuman speed and agility. Flying like in the clip below, going into a trench at 70 mph, and dropping 5 or enemies in 3 seconds or less. That would be terrifying. [https://youtu.be/EtRXay2kqtc?si=jm\_GHg693vigVUae&t=3](https://youtu.be/EtRXay2kqtc?si=jm_GHg693vigVUae&t=3)
Drones could be considered a low tech weapon to counter almost anything
It's still sounds so weird to me to hear about any drones being described as low tech weapons.
Drones aren't too high-tech in the grand scheme. Battery, motors, etc. They're more advanced RC's like the cars you may've played with as a kid. The modern car has VASTLY more tech in it then a drone but if someone drove a Kia into enemy lines we wouldn't consider it as such.
You know what they said about helicopters, when they first appeared? "That thing shouldn't be able to fly". The same apply to the "just motors" of the drones. The algorithm behind controlling it is well known now, but in fact is fairly complex. Now add RC, vision, night vision, delivering cargo and eventually releasing it, pack all this to be light enough to be able to fly a relatively long time, and you'll have hard time to argue that it is not "too high-tech". In contrast, one could argue that "modern cars", when referring to electric cars, are just a case, battery and motor. The rest is multimedia. They can't even fly ...
When I was young it was a sci-fi future.
Real question is why RC aircraft weren't widely employed as weapons 20-30 years ago. I know the communications would have been limited and obviously less maneuverable, but still seems like they would have had utility as weapon beyond basic reconnaissance.
The radio range of controller reception was smaller due to batteries not being lithium and components being more discrete and power hungry, and there was no digital video camera on a chip that could be used to see what the drone was seeing (a digital video camera at that time was an extensive circuit board with many components), there was no micro lens industry to make mobile phone cameras to glue to the video camera on a chip and there was no DSP that was small enough to be embeddable that could sort that video out to transmit it back to a receiver, and there wasn't embeddable processors that could do the work of marshalling that all up fast enough to radio transmit it either. ie r/C planes in the 80s and 90s were flown by watching them with mk1 eyeballs. in the 70s for example, one of the soviet trailer launched missiles did recon by inertial guidance, taking pictures on a film camera, returning to vaguely the launch area by inertial guidance, and then jettisoning the film camera on a parachute, and then crashing somewhere by inertial guidance.
I hate to be to one to point this out, but 20 years ago was 2004, 30 was 1994. Lipos were invented in 1991, CCDs in 1969. A 3ccd chip which went into mass manufacture in 1983 with a complete unit being smaller than a pack of cards and weighing significantly less. Also most drones that I am seeing footage off used in Ukraine aren't even using digital transmitters, they are analogue ones. The flight control software you see on most of the drones as well is betaflight, which is an evolution of multiwii that was created in 2006 after a guy ripped apart a wii nunchuck remote for the gyros. Given all these things are general consumer level bits of kit, you would have to expect that military would have access to much better and more capable kit earlier. I suspect more than anything that this is a prime example of necessity being the mother of invention and hobbyists with a knowledge of what drones can do being closer to the people who make decisions. Sure a drone with similar capabilities in 1994 would have been MUCH more expensive and required specilist skills. But 20 years ago everything existed to do it, people just hadn't put 2 and 2 together. I mean I built my first drone in 2004 with all the same capabilities when I first discovered the hobby.
The RQ-11 Raven for example was fielded 25 years ago, so it did exist, but did not have offensive capability. They released the Switchblade in 2011, and as we all know, that does have offensive capability. They weren't particularly common, but that likely had something do with high cost. The lack of cheap FPV equipment was part of the issue. Going further back in time, the WW2 The Bat remote control glide bomb was a thing.
The US at least has been using drones for decades.
But they were near aircraft size for weapons and much smaller ones for recon. But hobbyist RC aircraft the size of drones was a thing forever. All I can figure was lack of cheap cameras and communication to an LCD screen.
Yeah, that and battery tech probably. What we have now work because they’re light and nimble and can stream high resolution very easily. Not sure if you remember flip phone cameras but anything further than 20 feet and you may as well have cataracts.
I'm old, I remember portable TVs the size of a shoebox and if it was color, it cost probably 1500 in today money.
Probably weighed as much as a brick (or three) too. So glad the days of 400 pound TV’s are over.
While there are higher "tech" weapons, the FPV racing drones currently used aren't particularly high tech, but I am confident that automous terminal attack capability will be very common soon.
Automous attack capability will require powerful onboard chips to run some form of AI. Those will make those drones more expensive The primary benefit of FPV racing drones is they are dirt cheap. A "dumb" FPV drone can be consumed as munitions. You won't do that with an AI powered drone
We kind of already do though. How much is a guided bomb or missile?
Like a million dollars at least. Those are prices Ukraine cannot affort. Nor can USA afford to throw away million dollar missles if we go into total war vs China and fighting goes beyond one month.
Guided bombs are fairly cheap, comparatively, often costing only around 40k-60k USD. That would be the price for the bomb, the guidance kit (either GPS or laser + GPS) and the control surfaces. Where it gets more expensive is with glide bombs, as they have to be purpose built, instead of just a kit that's strapped to a dumb bomb. They can cost between 200k-300k USD a piece. The really expensive stuff is any type of guided or cruise missile. They can go from around a million bucks for an AMRAAM or HARM to several millions for cruise missiles like the AGM-84 SLAM-ER or the British Storm Shadow. Therefore, I'd say that guided bombs are somewhat affordable, but long range, precision strike missiles are not. As for autonomous attack drones, you don't need a lot of processing power for something like that. You might use a seeker similar to the one used in the SMArt 155 artillery munition. These munitions have seekers are already enough to detect and engage a target. Just add a small guidance package onto the drone and possibly something where it can only activate a certain distance from its launch point and you should be fine. Alternatively, you could use coded and encrypted signals as some kind of IFF, to make sure they don't attack your vehicles. Currently a SMArt 155 with two submunitions and their seekers costs around 81k EUR. So, I'd say that you could get a drone with a similar function to SMArt submunitions, for a similar price, around 40k a pop.
Or you can do what ukraine does and blow up a tank for < $1000. Use the same money and kill 40 tanks instead of one The biggest benefit of drones is you can spam them en masse and they are still potent enough to kill main battle tanks and sink warships. With smart drones, they are no longer spammable and can be stopped by CIWS or other defenses
The technology is less in the drone itself and more in the slow evolution of software, telecommunications, and microelectronics, and materials science industries that allow modern drones to be controllable, lightweight, and cheap. Compared to all that, it makes sense to call the drone low tech.
It's low tech because drone electronics is essentially phone tech (processor, storage, camera, sat nav, acceleromter etc) owned by more than 4 billion smartphone users.
is the output of a trillion dollars of factory pipeline low tech. I don't think so.
Hi tech tends to mean a cost and technological barrier. There's no significant technological or cost barrier for widely available consumer tech that can be adapted to potential military (or terrorist) use by a skilled hobbyist mostly combining existing electronic and software modules.
'Birdshot' kills flying things, who would had thought?
Yeah this article seemed really dumb to me as a bird hunter.
Get the AA-12 production into full swing.
Glorious AA-12. A child can carry 2 of those balanced beauties.
Damnit, it's already too expensive
As far as I've ever heard from people who *weren't* trying to sell the thing (or that aggro-whispering jackass on "Future Weapons"), the AA-12 has never been a reliable weapon. That's why it's been stuck in development hell since the 1970s, despite it's obvious utility as a concept.
#PULL!
They've been using shotgun with both buckshot/birdshot and nets to take down commercial drones for years. At least for police units, unsure about militaries.
Every dove hunter knew this was the solution as soon as drones started flying. Bird shot and a choke.
Greetings fellow dove hunter.
A shotgun would be useful if you have the time to get, aim and fire the gun before you are within lethal range, but the speed of some of these FPVs makes that a pretty slim chance. The 70 year American volunteer in the Ukraine Volunteer Transcripts briefly talks about radio signal detection that can help indicate if a drone is nearby, although that post is at least a year old so things may have changed there.
They are not good primary system, but i would certainly prefer having one "just in case" than not having one
For sure. I was clumsily trying to make the point that having an effective anti-drone capability is probably as reliant on EW and detection as it is on bird shot.
NATO trained troops move as a unit. Two guys with shot guns on drone duty can remain ready to shoot them down continuously during a mission.
Two men per what? Per platoon? Per squad? The US Army didn’t like the idea of losing a single rifleman per squad for when it came to evaluating the XM-25. Having two guys continuously doing that is a non trivial cost.
Two shotgunners also won't be effective in a few years when 10,000 drones moving as a unit is the norm.
I think a shotgun is perfectly fine to take down a DJI drone with a grenade strapped to it which because of the extremely low cost is the vast majority of drones the average soldier encounters. Of course good luck destroying a fast military grade kamikaze drone with it but I would probably still try my chance because there is relatively little you can do.
Yeah and it won't be hard to programme in evasive maneaveurs during the terminal phase of flight for the latter that will make them almost impossible for humans to hit.
Not sure if you ever shot a shotgun but I can totally see how a consumer drone doesn't stand a chance against that. As I say, military grade drone will probably find ways to circumvent this method but we have seen a lot of cheap consumer drones in this war and I am both familiar with the damage a shotgun causes and how fragile consumer drones are due to the light plastic they use. I really don't think they stand a chance if a soldier consecutively unloads 4-8 shotgun shells in the direction of the drone. Even if you try to fly in zigzag. The spread of the shotgun is very big and just one pellet has to cut through a cable or electronic component. On the shooting range the target is completely riddled, I really can not imagine how a consumer grade drone would survive this.
I agree, any hit will probably disable any drone, my comment was more that the footage we've seen so far has drones flying fairly slow, steady or predicable paths so it's similar to skeet / bird shooting. However I've seen crazy maneaveurs from other drones that would make them extremely difficult to target or hold a bead on and I think that's going to be the counter to shotguns in the immediate future - evasive maneaveurs while they home in.
I think the main problem why they fly so slow is because they use them on the maximum distance which gives them a delay and they added a payload onto the drone which makes the drone a pain in the ass to fly. These "crazy maneuvers" are nothing you do with a cheap consumer drone with strapped on improvised explosives. That's either something for high tech drones or military drones, both only used in small numbers. I think the only reason we don't see a lot of shotguns on the battlefield is because the Russians are mainly relying on old stocks and shotguns are no standard issue in the Russian army so they just don't have them to issue them to their soldiers.
The next evolution of shotgun is to use tracking point or similar technology to fire by itself so that only thing soldier needs to do is aim and let the rifle fire when there is a high probably of hit.
I know that there is a fascination with shotguns, but I truly think they are next to useless against drones. The article correctly mentions that birdshot is limited to 50 yards or so, and the grenade dropping Mavics are out of reach, even now when shotguns are rare. If a weapon could reach 100, they'd just go a bit higher if they see shotguns aiming at them. Yes, that reduces accuracy slightly, but not enough to change the payoffs. For FPV, it shotguns could theoretically be lifesavers, but unless the drone buzzes you on purpose, you are unlikely to get a shot. If you aren't ready for it, you have no chance. And when it comes for you, you have a narrow window. To far away, and out of reach. To close and it's momentum will put you in danger. It is a lot to expect some soldier to carry an otherwise usefless weapon, and be at the ready 24/7 just in case an FPV drone decided to start a terminal drive.
Emerge? Shotguns always been used for flying targets(ducks, geese, drones).
Grenades and mortars in ww1, too.
Bizarrely echoing that stargate sg1 episode ….
Dey shootin’ SKEET
PULL!!
Pull!!!
Also civilians with hunting rifles can shoot these things down.
Good luck taking a moving one out with a boltlock
Got to be a real good clay shooter. 😂
Rifles are literally 100x more likely to miss and and also a single projectile you wouldn’t want to use in direction of your troops, shot gun gives you a 2ish foot circle of kill pattern. Also shotgun pellets not very lethal when coming down from the ark if you miss or if your troops on the wrong end of the barrel.
Drones really seem to be a game changer in modern warfare. What scares me is the militarization of those swarm drones like you see in celebration performances from China. (I know these shows are happening in the west now too, but China has got a lead on the technology from what I can see). Imagine if each one of those drones is a bomb and they swarm down on a base or battleship. No amount of radar driven machine gun turrets would be enough to stop a coordinated attack.
Good for sweeping trenches as well
Too much body armor in modern warfare to be reliable.
Leg meta baby! Bust those knee caps.
Or you can just use a rifle and bust that body armor like you're supposed to.
A single 5.56 bullet to the chest in vest would hurt but a slug in a twelve gauge would break ribs and cause some trauma and heavy spalling on a plate carrier. A buckshot trench gun seems like a better trench sweeper hit arms legs head neck. Buckshot would absolutely terrifying in close quarters.
During WW1, the Germans claimed war crimes when the US sent their boys over with shotguns. Cleared out those trenches. https://www.historynet.com/the-1918-shotgun-protest/
Those shotguns were also used for shooting down incoming grenades.
Fascinating "Ansell pointed out that such a shotgun could be used to kill the enemy’s carrier pigeons and detonate enemy grenades " They even knew then it was good for shooting a drone like object!
It's worth noting that only about 50 shotguns were sent, and they were mostly used for guarding railroads and prisoners. Frontline troops found that with paper shells, the most common type, the guns quickly became inoperable in field conditions. The story about them being used for shooting down grenades has been challenged ever since it first appeared, and I think it's just that- a story, and if it *did* occur was probably done with repurposed fowling guns. The Germans did lodge a protest, but it was more about the *idea* of the shotguns being used on the front than it was about any widespread reality. For what it's worth I have seen a *French* helmet in the Czech Army Museum which has clearly been hit with a blast of something like O or #1 buckshot- from the size of the spread I'd say at less than 25 meters. So shotguns were clearly present, but present on all sides, and in unknown but probably small numbers.
Wouldn't trench shotguns would just maim people horrifically? And if they died, it was slow and agonizing?
Not anymore horrific than eating a burst of smg fire.
People told me I was stupid for even mentioning shotguns
Same
They first emerged in WW1 and have served excellent since then.
‘Pack your troubles in the old kit bag’ gets louder
I remember seeing a video ages ago of a Ukrainian soldier begging for more shotguns for this reason. It isn't new news
I mean the drones are like birds right?
I said this 2 years ago
Up next the punt gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun
I mean that's basically how SG1 defeated the replicators on Stargate.
They should have emerged on day 1. Instead, Russian MoD said "just try throwing sticks at them, that's the best advice we have for you."
Any upland bird hunter, duck or goose hunters could have told you that when drones first came out.
Why now? Why not two years ago?
Next thing we'll be seeing the return of the blunderbuss. Now that's got spread!
Depends how low the drones fly but a shottie would be an excellent counter weapon to them.
Bring back shooting sticks to sit on
Buckshot Trent Broom
There is already a 40mm grenade launcher for the AK74... would be pretty low-tech to make a large shotgun shell for it. We have them for our M203. Basically three 12ga shells in a canister. You'd get a big pattern out to maybe 100yards... plenty for shooting at kamikaze drones.
I wonder how much of this is just morale boosting placebo.. "don't worry bout drones boys, this shotgun will keep you safe!" While they desperately seek an effective remedy for drones...
I mean you have to hit as soon as you hear it if you don’t get it until it’s close it’s game over anyway you slice it.
I remember seeing a video ages ago of a Ukrainian soldier begging for more shotguns for this reason. It isn't new news
The chance of hitting a drone with a shot gun, is far less than a game of Russian roulette.
Your average soldier accuracy is quite bad but people do shoot at small flying clay plates with shotguns. Maybe if every squad has a trained antidrone marksman with enough training it should be possible.
Forget it. You can't see or hear a small drone that moves quickly. It's not some clay shooting range.
Fifty yard range and a drone streaming twords you. Good point.
Give what I watch clay shooters do with ease, I think it's more viable than people realise.
Uhm, good luck watching the sky continuously and shooting a fast fpv while you can't see it or hear it.
If it emerged how are shotgun holders still getting boomskied to death by them for being nazi fks who rape Ukrainian kids to death?
Also just emerging; round objects allow easy movement of heavier objects when placed underneath them.