Swarm Warfare makes all modern military obsolete.

File: Pentagon-successfully-tested-a-swarm-of-103-drone-826x423.jpg (41KB, 826x423px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 826x423px

>>33602220
>badass infantry or tank or whatever

Can't do fucking shit against a simple drone that falls on their head and explodes. If the target is in cover the drone just lands or attaches and waits.

File: 26FBDAE600000578-3010499-image-a-50_1427313793153.jpg (221KB, 962x644px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 962x644px

Look at this heap of junk.

What the fuck are you gonna do when 100 drones land and attach, while the other 50 kill any exposed human.

>Why is swarm warfare not talked about more on /k/?

Only so many ways to say your a faggot kid.

>>33603203
You could use drones to do that for you tho.

>>33602220
War crimes. No autonomous weapons allowed without a human in the loop.

>>33603203
Who's this kid person and why does he own a faggot?

>>33603304

this, I don't think anyone wants to open this box of worms

>>33602220
>air power will make armor and infantry obsolete
>every futuristfag ca. 1950

How did that work out?

>>33603334
It pretty much did
Look at the Gulf War invasion
For the infantry, it was pretty much a walking tour of what the AF blew up.

War is just so asymmetric now that you can't judge modern warfare by WW2 standards

>>33602262
Probably some combination of jamming to make they rely upon on-board AI, followed up by rapid-fire energy weapons and smaller hunter-killer drones.

>>33602220
>orientated
Britfaggot go shitpost somewhere you belong.

File: af security gulf war.jpg (70KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x960px

>>33603356
>For the infantry, it was pretty much a walking tour of what the AF blew up.
No it wasn't. There was some very, very hard fighting that took place.

Being a pog with the occasional Scud coming down and wrecking thirty or forty people -- and the Western media right there to dutifully act as Saddam's arty spotters -- wasn't exactly beer and skittles either.

>>33603356
> IADS designed around 50 air craft maximum
> Gets bum rushed by the worlds largest air force

Gulf war might not be the best representation of how two industrialized nations would fight each other with air power involved.

File: laser mosquito.gif (2MB, 450x379px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x379px

>>33602220
You're wrong
The future is laser.

Look at the gif. It's a mosquito being targeted and eliminated by a laser.
Scale that up.
Your "swarm" will be useless.
Automatic target acquisition and elimination.

Laser will kill air support. You can't outfly it or dodge it.

>>33603304
War crimes are just made up things winners of wars use to punish the losers while putting on an air of righteousness.

>>33603410
what if there's fog ?

>>33603410
> Implying the first wave won't just explode in giant clouds of carbon residue and smoke to ramp up attenuation

In all seriousness though, this probably is how the ships may also defend themselves. Once drones are using on-board AI and cameras to guide themselves to the ship, anything that obscures the ship's profile is going to fuck with their targeting.

>>33603461
What about it?
A practical laser would need to heat a target enough to melt metal
A little water vapour isn't going to stop that

>>33603304
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
We are working on drone swarms right now. There is not even a single question as to its ethical standing.
The only HARD requirement is that a human needs to give the order to kill. There are zero people who think that giving machines the right to both designate targets and kill them is a good thing in any scenario.

>>33603495
He's talking about diffraction, you fool.

>>33603539
And I'm saying that any water in the path of the beam will be vaporized and then no longer be able to diffract things

>>33603495
Depends, what wavelength of laser are we talking here?

>>33603557
The water isn't going to disappear just because you heated it up.

>>33603557
Wait, wasn't it already vaporized before the laser hit it?

>>33603567
Dunno, I'm not a science builder guy.
Whatever one that works.

>>33603577
Yeah, it kinda will
Hot things tend to move around a lot. Besides, apparently the issue is diffraction from liquid water suspended in the air. If it's a gas, it can't diffract.

>>33603583
We're talking about fog, right?
Fog is suspended liquid droplets.

>>33603605
Not a science builder guy either.

Gas molecules like N or CO2 alone will polarizing, sapping your beam's energy if it's at high enough energies to affect (effect?) metal, and eventually blocking it all together.

You could pulse to get around some of this, but water is also a big old energy sink, so I have to conclude it's going to make your job even harder.

Maybe there is a technique to get around this that I'm unaware of.

>>33603356
Yeah, we totally won in Vietnam and Afghanistan just by air power.

>>33602220
>Hasn't actually worked in the technology-defense industry
Try 50 years

Do smart missles nowadays still know where to "go" if their tracking/eyes/guidance gets jammed or zapped? Like do they have a map of the area precached with a path in mind?

File: Lux.jpg (160KB, 504x660px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 504x660px

>>33603410
Did someone say laser?

>>33603777
I doubt you could really jam ALL of a missiles sensors.

>won in Vietnam

>>33603311
Witnessed dub dubs, but just as Pandora couldn't resist peeking into her box, we won't stop pushing the envelope.

>>33603414
Yes, but it only works for,minor powers, not superpowers.

>>33603524
So it would operate similar to drones? Then they would need a command and control system supporting it. Do you have any relevant materials or articles you could share on the swarm development? Without it, we have no idea what sort of effectiveness it could have nor the mode of operation or how they will counter defenses.

File: Ender.jpg (10KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x236px

Ender Wiggin figured out how to defeat a swarm back in 1985.

>>33604075
By literally using swarms in geometric formations to beat bugs in chaotic swarms.

>>33603334
It's not airpower

It's brainpower, mouse-level intelligence.

>>33603364
Swarm vs Swarm obviously, with some automated weapons. No human is going to be aiming at a fucking drone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6sz8bquB50

The freq of human brain is too slow to deal with this shit.

>>33603311

China.

>>33602220

A stiff breeze will disable your entire "swarm".

>>33602220
"Swarms" are a waste of time and money because of how range / explosive capability / guidance accuracy scale with size. You're better off having a few larger PGMs (can still be cheap) than a hundred piece of shit drones with no operational use.

>>33603567
LaWs operates at a wavelength of 1.064 microns. The optimal wavelength for use in atmosphere 1.045 microns. It's near-infrared or infrared.

>>33604378
Oh, yeah. No way energy weapons will be small enough to be man portable any time in the near future anyway.

I assume they'll just shove them on a Phalanx with a different software package and call it a day.

>>33602220

Anyone thinking of the drones and micro-drones from Stargate Atlantis?

>>33603524
>There are zero people who think that giving machines the right to both designate targets and kill them is a good thing in any scenario.
Unless those people are swedes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLqjoyEkE8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I

Why not just build a giant flyswatter? When you think about it, it's not that different than having mosquitoes in your house

File: nasa_absorption_rates_laser.jpg (52KB, 626x642px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 626x642px

>>33604541
Doesn't look great for water vapor, but I guess it helps with the other elements/compounds?

I'm not an optics physicist, so I just go off the easy to read graphs.

File: shootdownsequence1__large.jpg (25KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 800x600px

>>33602262
lasers
just like mosquitoes

>>33603334
>muskets will make swords and knights obsolete
>every futuristfag ca. 1450

>>33602220

>Drones
>Basically a really, really, slow smart bomb.

Yes anon whatever will we do against this "new" unstoppable technology?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmUfiPRrbMw

>>33604500
Warhead scale according to target. There is no need for larger warhead if smaller does the trick.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00318644.pdf

>>33604500
Drones will improve, battery tech is shitty but the AI will constantly get better and hardware cheaper in general.

>>33603807
now were talking

File: considerations_f2.gif (40KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x390px

>>33604653
A clearer image of where 1.045μm lies.

>>33604645
>this underrated post

>>33602220
>What is
ELECTRONIC WARFARE

it would not be hard to overwhelm/ scramble/ fry/ destroy small drones.

>>33603821
You could feasible do it with some kind of EW radiator.

File: OZ-02MD_Virgo.jpg (190KB, 371x483px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 371x483px

In b4 "muh mobile dolls"

>>33604676
It's about impossibly high saturation.

Swarm doesn't mean one. It means 100,000.

>>33605721
wrong
>>33604654
way too inefficient

File: AM.jpg (27KB, 250x323px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 250x323px

All this talk of drones with advance AI makes me scared.

Small swarm drones are a meme weapon.

>send only drones
Get laser'd
Get railshotgun'd
Get flamethrower'd

>send smoke missiles first
Uneven smoke distribution because they get laser'd too
Drones lose track of enemy, have to rely on fixed flight paths right up to the end
Defender may also develop methods to scatter the smoke

Don't send an insect to do an eagle's job.

File: MOAB.jpg (368KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 3000x3000px

>>33602220

File: scanhead.jpg (22KB, 387x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 387x293px

>>33606477
>way too inefficient
How? It's perfect against small flying things - basically instant time to 'impact', flying things are typically low mass so they're more susceptible to heating, switching targets can be done insanely fast with mirrors.

>>33606548
interesting discussion is bait now

>>33604118

>By literally using swarms in geometric formations to beat bugs in chaotic swarms.

I seem to remember big fucking guns doing the trick.

God help me, I think you've just justified BBfaggotry

File: w8 wat.jpg (30KB, 400x384px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x384px

>>33606561

>Swarm warfare is the only mode of warfare that can succeed in the next 2-20 years. Almost all standard or typical forms of warfare are obsolete.
>Everything has to be orientated around a swarm-based force. Human-orientated warfare is obsolete.
>A large force of autonomous suicide drones and support drones will literally just shit on every other type of force. Cheap mass production, good limited-AI pieces, etc is all that matters.
>Infantry is obsolete. Tanks are obsolete. Fighting Vehicles are obsolete. Most air power is obsolete. Pretty much 95% of current USA military hardware is obsolete.

How is this not bait?

>>33604118
>chaotic

The Formic formations were anything but chaotic.

>>33602220
>Swarm warfare is the only mode of warfare that can succeed in the next 2-20 years.
It's like you've never heard of communications jamming.
>>33603304
>No autonomous weapons allowed without a human in the loop.
What the fuck is a cruise missile, then? You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>33606583
it's too obvious to be bait, it'd be like safety-orange bear traps on your front lawn, it's just a crappy exaggeration to get attention

I remembered reading about suicide drones and thinking "Wow, that's retarded. Why not just launch a missile that can get there from a base further out and therefore safer, and faster?"

also
>nuclear niggaspam makes all war obsolete so checkmate adidas ::::^^^^((((

>>33606461

Are you the same faggot who's been whining about every counter to your hypothetical drone swarm being "inefficient" when you want 100,000 hyperexpensive miniaturized drones with AI? Consider the sheer fucking cost.

>>33606701
Someone has to fire the missle, bud

>>33604378
>No human is going to be aiming at a fucking drone.
Even acro/racing drones can feasibly be hit by a human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq0oCM37oZA
Factor in automated/assisted systems (CIWS/APS and such) and it's not really difficult at all.

Also Quadmovr is incredible.

File: 980x1000_15131_Bomberguy_2d_sci_fi_character_soldier_fat_big_gun_picture_image_digital_art.jpg (365KB, 980x1000px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 980x1000px

>>33602220
you do realize that there will be counters to drone swarms that we probably can't even conceive of right now? The minute that their full destructive potential becomes clear will be the minute people will start scrambling to produce a counter, if they aren't already. They'll do this not because it is necessary to preserve the current state of warfare but because there's a shit-ton of money to be made.

>teleports behind your swarm
>"too slow, amigos."
>fires AI-guided micro-missile cluster and obliterates every single drone
>"heh, looks like the hivemind is no match for my superior intellect."
>tips ballistic helmet before fading out of this dimension and into the shadow realm

>>33606583

The fact that he's specifying suicide drones and not, say, ones equipped with little cutting lasers or something is what really gives it away. So fucking expensive.

Also his claims that humans can't shoot down drones.

No drone on the PLANET is the match for a Magical Girl defending her boyfriendu while simultaneously concealing her identity from him.

Swarm warfare status: Obsolete

>>33606523
It's about cost. Only a % have to get through.

>>33606561
energy requirement is too high. Are you lugging around nuclear power plants?

The idea of a swarm is overwhelming numbers and cost efficiency. It's simple, cheap, and destructive. It's not that it's better than a human soldier. It's that you can lose 200 of them and not give a shit while a dead or injured soldier isn't as cheap

File: it's a plane.jpg (32KB, 736x460px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 736x460px

>>33602220

>A large force of autonomous suicide drones and support drones will literally just shit on every other type of force.

Not if you're blasting enough EM interference to fuck up their positioning sensors. The technology for this exists, and if swarms ever become used in combat militaries will build devices capable of countering them. Also, swarms themselves are just tiny RC planes that have shit range. This even assumes these devices can reliably find targets, their targeting information is likely to come from an E-2 or E-3.

The larger issue (and what all the money goes into) is making swarms work with existing UAVs, UUVs and ships. Tiny RC planes are not cost competitive against larger missiles or bombs, at least as it pertains to mass production. What matters is making it work as a component within a larger system, especially if you're going up against a real military and not an insurgency.

>Why do people think Grunts can even survive on such a battlefield not to mention cost difference.

Because to deploy swarms you're going to need to park a truck capable of deploying them (such as from a missile), if swarms ever become a major thing that truck is going to become the hottest target on the battlefield. Air delivery is (obviously) another option, but air superiority is more important here and swarm drones are a bad defense against aircraft with longer range missiles equipped.

And, more broadly speaking aircraft in general are checked by missiles (or more recently lasers) deployed from ships or trucks. So, swarm drones aren't the game in the grander scheme of things though they are an option if you're fighting towelheads.

>>33606701
They don't need any comms

simple narrow AI ala self-drive car tech

>>33606706
cost

>>33606716
$4000 per drone or less

We are talking mass scale production, aka 10s of millions

>>33606735
The counter you just proposed is a swarm itself

hence would be considered part of the swarm warfare paradigm

>>33606790
>It's about cost.
You're trying to undercut the price of laser beams here. That is not a fight you can win.

>>33606803
>Swarm logic doesn't need comms or coordination
So basically your "swarming" is just missile spam. That's already a thing, you know.

>>33603356

>War is just so asymmetric now that you can't judge modern warfare by WW2 standards

hey retard not all wars are asymmetric. If what you were saying was true then we wouldn't need aircraft carriers or submarines, only a coast guard. While the lines between police and military have been blurred in the US (which is funny because such distinctions don't really exist as much in the rest of the world), they're still distinctive things with their own duties. The military is expected to fight other militaries, LEOs are expected to enforce the law.

This is why occupations tend to be such a fucking mess and never go well, because it's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's why Iraq has been in a constant state of civil warfare for the past decade despite a massive US military (and chair force) presence.

>>33606800
fully self-autonomous with narrow ai not RC or comms dependent.
I doubt the cost effectiveness could be matched

>>33606800
The way swarm mobility works is different than a truck deployment. It's more like leapfrogging.

A good way to understand it.

Imagine an IED/Mine that wakes up and heads to the nearest human and explodes. Except the range is in football fields.

>>33606813
Where are these economical laser beams at?

I see drones all the time. I don't see people with lasers killing things or blowing things up.

ISIS have confirmed kills against USA troops with explosive drones. I don't think there are any lasers with confirmed kills.

>>33606762
What if the swarm is controlled by another magical girl who used to be the first magical girl's best friend who was corrupted by evil due to her unrequited crush on the first magical girl and you're not sure if its a deconstruction Magical Girl series or not?

>>33606803

>simple narrow AI ala self-drive car tech

That tech works because the device is either constantly communicating with a telephone box, a satellite or other vehicles to accurately determine it's position. Even if it has it's own radar antenna attached (which is very unlikely due to the weight), it's still susceptible to interference that could cause it to misread it's position.

Also, self-driving car tech overall is pretty shit, Uber couldn't even stop their Volvo from running red lights.

>>33606820
of course

It's exactly the same thing except magnified thousands of times in scale and with on/off capability.

It can arrive at a location and go silent until it needs to hit. Instead of a big single explosion for instance it gives complete control of the area for extended periods of time.

Explosive large bees

>>33606845
>GPS positioning

It will literally just kill anything in it's area. It doesn't need shit except some cameras and training on what the basic shape of a human looks like or infrared etc

btw I can confirm

we are in the age of the swarm and 95% of military capabilities are obsolete.

get used to it bitches. Zerg won.

>>33606827

>fully self-autonomous with narrow ai not RC or comms dependent.

Any intelligence, including AI, needs to know it's position. Pilots are trained to look for landmarks and navigate using paper maps if their GPS fails. Even if drones can use each other to determine their position, they're still having to communicate with something somehow.

>I doubt the cost effectiveness could be matched

A regular missile blows more shit up, there's your cost effectiveness. The only advantage swarm drones offer is, maybe, it'll reduce collateral damage to civilians. But that's rarely a concern in warfare (at least, in wars that are decisively won).

>>33602220
oh look, the giant off switch for a swarm of robots, the EMP

>>33606856

>It will literally just kill anything in it's area.

And how is it going to know WHERE it's area is? To determine area, you first need two reference points. If those points cannot be determined, the device cannot accurately determine it's position.

>>33606870
They don't need to know position

How do you know your position?

You're point is basically mindless to me. Like it's so apparently wrong that I have trouble reading or even thinking about how to respond to something so wrong. It's like explaining gravity when I'm trying to talk about the evolution of war.

A regular missile blows up 1 discrete area. The equivalent of a regular missile would precision kill 50 people instead and take far more work to clear.

>>33606876
There are counters to EMP

Also it's still based on attrition warfare. You aren't losing lives. You are just losing $$$. Even if EMP counters swarm it has to do so cost effectively and reliably.

There is no morale. Just endless killer drones.

>>33606870
>Pilots are trained to look for landmarks and navigate using paper maps if their GPS fails.
Missiles do it since 1954.

>>33606836

Then it's even more one-sided as an open yuri ending would never be permitted. The corrupted magical girl is obviously going to lose and get a bittersweet ending where she sees the error of her ways and gives up her own dream for the happiness of the person she loves only to realize that what was most precious to her all along was their friendship. In the next season she serves as a contrast to that season's villain, who will be unabashedly evil.

File: nature-forest-hiking-path.jpg (3MB, 2300x1533px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2300x1533px

>>33602220
How do you hold a forest territory with drones?

>>33606881
It has a brain.

How do you know where you are after you hike 2 miles north? Do you have to confirm with GPS?

File: ces-computer-vision-example-web.gif (131KB, 700x393px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 700x393px

>>33606894

It works exactly the same way as in other terrains. Their effectiveness would probably be insanely higher though.

>>33606797

The problem is that for swarms to be good they have to become so expensive that a peasant conscript is much, much cheaper, and technological advancement doesn't always make things less expensive...consider the cost of an aircraft carrier versus a ship-o-the-line, for instance.

>>33606846
I bring out my spud gun and fire potatoes in their general direction until they have expended themselves on potatoes, then I move in.

>>33606886

>They don't need to know position

then how do they determine where their target is, and how do they determine a flight path into it? In order to make a path in the first place you have to know where both you and your target points are.

>How do you know your position?

I'm sitting 12" from a northern wall and 36" from a western wall and seated about 24" off the ground. My position is 3, 1, 2.

>>33606904
see this picture

it flys to the green things and explodes

that is machine vision from a dataset, already outdated and obsolete compared to cutting edge too.

>>33606907
I'm not talking about milcomplex swarm designs

I'm talking about intelligent and economic designs.

>>33606909
It knows initial position.

Fly X north and kill nearest target in 100 feet.

You can imagine it as a directional weapon. It heads north and kills anything in radius after a certain distance traveled. Once at a destination if no target it lands at a nice perch and scans for a target.

If it finds a target it heads into proximity and explodes.

>>33605849
Too soon. baka...

>>33606809

Never gonna happen unless they're super-shitty missiles and not really "drones" in anything but being slow.

>>33606886

>A regular missile blows up 1 discrete area. The equivalent of a regular missile would precision kill 50 people instead and take far more work to clear.

The former option blows up the entire building and kills everyone inside, the latter kills the 50 people it could find, likely leaving survivors (say ones hiding in a basement, panic room, or underneath a bed). If the goal is pure murder, which option is a commander going to choose?

>>33606893
That's if it's a classic yuri bait Magical Girl series. If it's deconstruction then the corrupted magical girl will kill her friend, only to fall into despair as the death breaks through the corruption.

>>33606894
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6s5144AYO8

>>33606892

yeah no shit sherlock, and they do it through radio communications

>>33606897

>How do you know where you are after you hike 2 miles north?

I get out my compass, record the headings of each visible landmark, then I triangulate my position from three sources. Computers use radio waves (either as communications or as radar) which can be interfered with.

This is literally fanfiction.

>>33606936
regular missile is shit in comparison

Let's super charge the drones. They release chemical weapons in proximity and can kill multiples.

>>33606941
now imagine something like that without a human driver and it wants to explode next to your skull.

Also thousands of them in the area.

>>33606835

On big ships mostly.

>I see drones all the time

But not 100,000 tiny exploding drones with AI. There's a reason why only goatfuckers with no industrial base are using suicide drones, because as it stands it's a shittier guided missile. Meanwhile, civilized countries are actually developing laser defense systems, it's a real thing worth pursuing. You will not win this argument.

>>33606953
Machine learning is not like computers.

It can navigate with a variety of tools. Even china has machine learning based missiles now.

>>33606931

>It knows initial position.

which is fucking pointless on a battlefield that is dynamic, what happens if the truck you're trying to blow up drives 50 feet from the expected position? If the weapon cannot update the target's location in real time, then it will not hit it. While this isn't impossible to do (in fact all missiles do it), it' remains a counter.

>Once at a destination if no target it lands at a nice perch and scans for a target.
>scans

See right there: scans. SCANS. It's using a radar to locate the positions of targets, as well as it's own position then using that data to calculate a new flight plan. If it cannot get accurate location data, it's ability to do this is neutered.

>>33606955
ISIS has killed USA troops with explosive drones already

It's the next evolution.

The key limit of aircraft was the requirement to carry a human. Guided missiles allievated this somewhat. Now we are going to have simple intelligences on chips that can guide an air based object without need for a 140 lb human body and controls.

So you make it just large enough to kill a human, carry the chips, battery, and engine. That's still relatively tiny.

>>33606967

>Machine learning is not like computers.

a computer is a machine, retard

>It can navigate with a variety of tools.

And all of them are radio based.

>>33606919

You want highly advanced and therefore expensive robot brains on disposable grenades. God damn you are stupid. This is that fucking firebomb bat idea again only more expensive and with more operational problems.

>>33606968
It's mass

Swarms don't give a fuck if target moves because they are expendable and overwhelming in number.

It's not about how a single drone does anything. A single drone can fucking shit itself and fall into the sand. It's about what a million hunter-killer explosive drones do.

>>33606982
moore's law

Even if they are X cost today they will be cheap tomorrow. The real limiting factor is battery due to the relative slow advancement of battery tech.

>>33606938

That's a subversion, not a deconstruction, and with the premise that Girl A has a boyfriendu and romantic shenanigans involving her identity it's safe to say that any crush subplot with Girl B will inevitably be sidelined, unless Boyfriendu is the secret protagonist and this is a proper deconstruction in which case both girls are 100% totally fucked.

I bet these "cost-effective" "mass-produced" drones totally know how to find the weak spot on the armor of an unfamiliar tank design too huh bruh?

>>33602220
>Birdshot can fuck up your swarm

We haven't even perfected birdshot yet. Imagine big ass shotguns mounted to tanks just shooting high speed BB's up in the air. It would wreck your expensive swarm in seconds for next to nothing in cost.

There's also EMP's. I can only see this being viable against poorly equipped insurgencies.

>>33606977

The "battery" part is the problem: electric aircraft propulsion isn't done for a reason because batteries are inefficient compared to regular fuels. Less efficiency means a very low range, and probably a low speed. Hence why all of DARPA's swarm tech has been based around being released from a mothership or missile, because this somewhat mitigates the problem.

Also the viability of combat aircraft in general is likely to be challenged with the new laser systems (which avoid the power problem entirely, as they're usually connected to their own power plant), should they prove themselves.

>>33606977

ISIS has killed USA troops with bad food and rocks, too, is that the next evolution of war? You're literally describing a much less well-implemented, much slower, much more EXPENSIVE version of guided missiles and going "no dude it will be cheaper because muh future".

>expensive swarm

also the bird shot won't be able to hit the swarm. You are severely underestimating the speed and agility of potential swarms. Even articulating for good coverage with the guns will be hard.

You also have to understand there are still other assets. The heavy status of a tank can attract weapons systems more designed for it, while the swarm covers infantry in death.

>>33603414
>War crimes are just made up things winners of wars use to punish the losers while putting on an air of righteousness.

You realize how retarded this is, right? If anything, it's the other way around. If war crimes didn't exist, superpowers would CRUSH smaller nations. Superpowers don't engage in shit like chemical warfare because we think the smaller nation will use it, we don't use them because they are inhumane and unfair. Not everyone wants to torture other human beings. Goddamn this board is so retarded sometimes.

>>33602220
Automated point defense.

>>33606977
>just large enough to kill a human

In other words, this is only good against regular infantry? Okay. One guy in an armored power suit with a flamethrower beats 100,000 of your drones. He doesn't even need a laser tank.

>>33607009
Yeah practical wise with current tech you would want to deploy at high altitude and use grav.

The current way of deployment is high alt or close range anti-infantry. That will evolve. The thing is the high-cost high-tech type weapon systems get overwhelmed. It's pointless to have a super aircraft F-49 type thing that can't be destroyed. If you have 10 of them and the enemy has 1,000,000 shitty cheap drones they will conquer the entire battlespace before your prinpicks matter.

Autonomous tech just allows such mass scale forces it's insane.

OP, you've watched way too much gundam my son.

>>33606984

>Swarms don't give a fuck if target moves because they are expendable and overwhelming in number.

And swarms are totally useless if they can't locate their position and fly in circles before they run out of fuel and glide into the ground away from the target. The entire point of them is to be cost competitive against standard missiles, if they can't hit their target because they are too reliant on electronic infrastructure then they're not a useful weapon.

>It's not about how a single drone does anything. A single drone can fucking shit itself and fall into the sand. It's about what a million hunter-killer explosive drones do.

The enemy will scale up defenses (ie electronic warfare) in response, unless they're towelheads. The underlying problem itself needs to be solved. This is partially why most of the drones that do exist tend to be aircraft large enough to accept radars, which help mitigate the problem.

>>33607037
looks more expensive than a drone.

>>33602220
spaag makes a come back ?
and besides they are all low altitude drones

>>33606984

Even if each drone cost $1, which they wouldn't, with those capabilities, you're spending millions to accomplish less than what an equivalent missile could do.

I'll leave it to another anon to explain to you in detail why you're retarded for thinking an EMP or EW or something fucking with its sensors would only knock out one drone.

>>33606992

Moore's Law is inherently unscientific because the needs of a platform change. See above about the comparison between modern warships and warships of a few centuries ago.

>>33607058
The thing is the things you are talking about seem expensive

ala laser/emp/ew

unreliable and high cost

>>33606977

ISIS is the worst possible example for competent military technological innovation you could find.

File: 1213160173153.jpg (165KB, 1200x994px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x994px

>>33603777

Yes. Look up inertial navigation. The missile knows where it is (because it knows where it isn't).

>>33607041

>It's pointless to have a super aircraft F-49 type thing that can't be destroyed. If you have 10 of them and the enemy has 1,000,000 shitty cheap drones they will conquer the entire battlespace before your prinpicks matter.

This theory only works if those shitty and cheap drones are even capable of flying at the same altitude the F-49 can, which probably is not the case if they are shitty or cheap since high altitude flight tends to require jet or rocket propulsion. This also assumes a situation where laser weapons tech does not evolve, which is unlikely.

>Autonomous tech just allows such mass scale forces it's insane.

It's also completely for naught if the enemy takes out your infrastructure. If the enemy destroys your satellites, your AWACS, and your radar ship (perhaps with a suicide bomber, see MC02), your autonomous forces don't work. This is a major problem especially if you're operating in a remote region of the world where there's not many communications equipment other than your own.

>>33606995
What if the boyfriend is secretly the villain?

>>33607041

Not if your F-49 has better sensors and missiles that can kill 10,000 drones per shot at over-the-horizon differences. You can say "it's insane" or "evolution" as much as you like, Rule of Cool does not apply in real life and things like "cost" and "range" still matter.

>>33607069

still cheaper and more reliable than deploying a bunch of rc planes and hoping they fly into their target and not get blown off course by the wind

>>33607075
It's not that they are great innovates

It's that they managed to do it

They didn't create lasers or EMPs, it's about cost.

I could see swarms being used for VIP assassinations in the near future, but you couldn't possibly manufacture enough for general anti-personel or anti-materiel applications. Even with a precision (>0.5m) strike, the smallest practical warheads approach the size of modern ballistic missles, which still require all the additional avionics, flight control systems, fuel, and engine. Small drones actually INCREASE the cost per effective payload delivery, because weapons delivery systems don't scale very efficiently, and you shrink the system, a higher proportion of weight and materials is dedicated just to keeping it flying in the right direction.

>>33607023
>cheap
>able to dodge birdshot somehow

Are these things powered by fucking magic or are you just autistic? Because from the sound of it, shotguns and EW countermeasures turn your multimillion-dollar swarm into easy pickings.

>>33606836
homu did nothing wrong

>>33606797
What size drones are we talking about? 150W CO2 lasers cut sheet metal. 500W laser defense could be hauled on a golf cart. Small flying objects don't have enough mass to withstand that, and getting enough mass would lower the payload to nothing or massively increase the size and cost.

File: drone_defeater_4000.png (62KB, 900x650px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 900x650px

>>33607048
Internal combustion engines are very cheap.

>>33607069

A lot more reliable and cheaper than what you're suggesting.

>>33607069

One EW system that can knock out a million drones is a lot cheaper than a million drones. The same goes for a laser or EMP. ALL of those are more reliable than the "shitty, cheap" drones you're so enamored with.

>>33607101

And we've killed far more of them for far less with...guess what? Bullets! Fired by infantry!

>>33607087

AOTY easily if he wins, otherwise 100% pure shit.

>>33607130

Like I said, it's literally his fanfiction. I'm jealous of his autism, I can't pretend that man-piloted humanoid giant robots will ever be viable superweapons, let alone argue about it seriously on /k/.

>>33607069 #
That's not a problem! Because like you have said about drones, if it's expensive today, it'll be cheap tomorrow!

Seriously this thread is fucking stupid
>cheap highly intelligent drones will kill everything!
But intelligent drones are expensive
>so?! They'll be cheap in the future! I guarantee it!
Okay. But we can counter it with (x) anyway
>nuh uh. Those are expensive now, and therefore will be expensive forever!
...Okay, well then we can counter with cheap things like shotguns
>nuh uh, my ultra cheap drones are really fast, maneuverable and smart!
Then they won't be fucking cheap

You seem to have confused "drones" with "my favourite power fantasy wankfest of an anime character".

>drone can only carry at max the equivalent of a hand grenade
>Get in tank
>Run over radar dish as thousands of drones explode trying to crack the armor
>???
>Profit

I can hear OP's heart breaking.

>>33607023
>also the bird shot won't be able to hit the swarm.
See >>33606730
They hit the fuckers with PISTOLS and a total Aussie nogunz managed to hit one with birdshot easy at the end of the video.

>>33602220
So the human wave only with drones? I think people would cost less to use.

File: Punt gun.jpg (325KB, 1024x790px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1024x790px

>>33607003
>We haven't even perfected birdshot yet. Imagine big ass shotguns mounted to tanks just shooting high speed BB's up in the air.
Anti-droneswarm Punt Guns when?

>>33606913
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qah8oIzCwk

This is tech in its infancy mind you, if it is taken up on the scale of the military industrial complex it will just escalate incredibly.

>>33607209
nah bra lazers will rape it

ww2 era dp guns could deal with any conceivable drone swarm, until you reach pgm slinging f-16 sized drones and then we just use the same weapons we use today to fight aircraft

>fastest drones right now are approx 120 mph top speed decreases exponentially with even a few pounds
>Max flight time of 25 minutes


Unless you can deploy your drones on top of what you're trying to destroy they'll be entirely ineffective for at least ten to twenty years, and then only a joke at best.

>>33607209
>almost every avoidance maneuver starts just as or after the plane passes the obstacle
>1:04-1:12
>Almost hits tree
>Goes "Oh shit a tree"
>Turns TOWARDS tree
I'm pretty sure they cherry picked all of that footage, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we'll get there within a year or two, but that's not a particularly impressive example (other than the highway-in-the-sky overlay, that was cool I guess).

>>33607255
>All drones are quadcopters, all quadcopters are drones
When will this meme die
Stop killing my hobby by associating it with flying death machines that annihilate Taliban weddings

>>33602220
>A large force of autonomous suicide drones and support drones will literally just shit on every other type of force without any EW capabilities.
fixed

File: martain blueprints.jpg (256KB, 1600x1198px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1600x1198px

>>33607415
>>33607139
I don't think you guys realize the effect quantum entanglement will have on swarm warfare. Drones will we able to communicate instantly, and there's really not a way to block them. Not to mention that by the time this technology has matured enough for military use, drones will be much more complex and the algorithms that govern swarm patterns will have advanced to extremely sophisticated levels. I could see wars precipitated by mass naval and air barrages, from largely automated missile cruisers and remotely piloted bombers. Drone swarms would be sent in after air control was established, mostly for complete enemy surveillance ahead of the ground forces. Bombers would carry the munitions, and drones would guide them to their targets with a constant relay of information. Drones would even link up with artillery batteries and mortars to designate targets. Keep in mind these aren't low, slow flying quadcopters but rapid and high flying single engined devices the size of large birds.

>buh muh lasers
Even more reason for drone warfare. When lasers have advanced to such rapid rates of fire and pinpoint, instantaneous accuracy planes will be obsolete. A ground laser battery combined with high flying drone spotters would make conventional, man piloted aircraft suicidal. Stealth technology cannot render planes invisible to the visual sensors of drones, which will be thousands of times more efficient than the human eye. In such a case, the only way to take out these defenses would be with swarms of smart missiles flying in coordinated attacks to maximize survivability - otherwise known as drones.

>>33602262
which drones would they be?

>>33604656
Swords were still used for about 400-450 more years in mainstream European warfare.

>>33607576
Dare I say it...
...proofs?

>>33603717
Yes we did.

>>33607576

You do know how quantum entanglement works, right?

You're only getting half the message at either end, meaning the sender still needs to send packets of information at lightspeed.

Plus, QE is ridiculosuly, extremely expensive requiring each drone to be paired with every other drone and every command station. Compare to just giving each one a radio, it's not that effective.

Quantum entanglement is a meme that needs to die.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (42KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1280x720px

>>33603710
right the first time, affect
>affect is the action, effect is the result

>>33607576
>>33607845

Heres a better explanation of it;

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php#id--FTL_Communication--Quantum_Entanglement

The idea of engagements opening with swarms and counterswarms wrecking each other's shit before the conventional fighting with what's left begins is grimdark as fuck. I like it.

>>33602220
>cheap mass production
If they can't make simple missiles to bomb an airfield for less than half a million apiece, there's no way they'll be able to make these things cheap either. Not cheap enough to produce enough of a "swarm" to really fight this way, without robbing the fuck out of your population to fund the war effort.

...on second thoughts, that's exactly what the military-industrial complex wants. My prediction: The lobbyists will sell Congress on swarm warfare, so they pay billions and billions for overpriced suicide drones, then find excuses to use them so they have to be replenished at the taxpayer's expense.

>>33606797
>Are you lugging around nuclear power plants
Yes
/thread

>>33606809
That should happen, if they were spec'd and contracted out by someone who actually gave a flying fuck about cost efficiency. But they won't, the lobbyists will win, we'll be buying them for half a million dollars apiece and absolutely raping our economy even further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WksPMueXkP4

I know where this is going

>>33604075
>>33604118
>>33606565
>>33606681

Friends, please.
I love Ender Wiggin (whose father was Polish according to book) and I have been a fanboy of Orson Scott Card for 25 years, but I think Polish jew Lem knew better.

>How to fight swarms of AI minibots
>Stay the fuck away from them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible

>>33607944
That movie was such a peace of garbage compared to the excellent story it was based on.

>>33606477
wrong how. Do you know anything about EW.

Look into the broad spektrum capability of Australian EA-18 Growlers and done be such a smart ass.

>>33604420
High end hobby-tier drones can maintain gps-position in gusts up to 50mph. Commercial cinematography drones are even more stable than that. Imagine what a military-grade drone made to carry a small weapons payload could handle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)

>muh drones
>implying EW doesn't exists
Are you retarded or what? Drones are notoriously easy to destroy.

File: kills your planes.jpg (71KB, 770x447px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 770x447px

>>33606953
>and they do it through radio communications
DSMAC systems are optical.

>>33608155
ISIS uses hobby drones with great success. America and their fogs are hopeless to stop weponised hobbyking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf2jBbIDdNs

Hahaha
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/americas/drone-shot-by-patriot-missile-trnd/

>>33603410
>scale it up
Lasers do not scale linear because they're weird.
Also I don't think our lasers are even 20% efficient.
Lasers are a mistake.

>>33608543

Had to look into this and it's really cool but it still uses radar.

"It uses a pre-recorded contour map of the terrain that is compared to measurements made during flight by an on-board radar altimeter."

>>33602262
Just add couple more CIWS

>>33607026
Name one leader on the winning side of a war who was punished for war crimes. Random enlisted men thrown under the bus for PR dont count.

>>33607576
Quantum Entanglement can't be used to actually communicate information. If you use a detector to read the particle the entanglement stops

File: IMG_1438.jpg (136KB, 674x425px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 674x425px

>>33603524
South Korea would like to have a chat with you

Itt:
>hey if we pitch this sci fi shit against something that exists today that sci fi shit might win
>nah, the things we can use to counter them today can't possibly improve by the time said sci-fi shit comes out!
It's like mechs vs tanks all over again

>>33603410

I want this for my front porch.

>>33609087
These aren't even that uncommon many countries have them.

>>33608826
Kys? Kys!
http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/views/pdfs/V15_N3_1994/V15_N3_1994_Irani.pdf

If you're gonna go through all the effort to build a drone that just kamakazis into the target, why not just use a missile? There are hypersonic missiles in development that can't be intercepted by current ciws systems, and they'd deliver a heck of a bigger payload than some dinky drone.

>>33603410
Didn't bill gates fund that project in his holy crusade against mosquito's?

>>33602220
How exactly are swarms of drones better than missles? They acomplish the same thing, only missles are available right now. I would rather improve the accuracy of missles than develop a whole new weapon that will have all sorts of bugs and problems that will need to be fixed.

>>33603524
Any system that does not use radar or any other jammable sensors, which do exist, would be under the GOLIS, go onto location in space, category.

There are a few different categories for these systems.

Entirely anonymous guidance systems, travel to a predetermined location using a gyroscope to orientate themselves. Not only are these systems easy to shoot down due to a predetermined flight path, they are also inherently flawed for attacking movie objects, like planes, tanks, infantry and supplies convoys.

There are also those that use cameras, these can be split up in to celestial/astro-inertial guidance and terrestrial guidance.

Celestial/astro guidance is when a camera is used to locate a single star(or more) and orientate the missile according to the star, this is possible as the star is a fixed point. This guidance system is used on the trident missile system among others. This system is also useless as the target it is going for is stationary and not moving.

The final one, terrestrial guidance, which has been mentioned before due to its use of target identifying systems. These systems work by having a topographical or fully 3d map, which it compares the pictures it takes with. A computer the. Decides the point at which the biggest change has occurred and aims for this location. This is the only current system that can target moving objects, though not very accurately.
Since this is the only possible guidance system these drones would have i will say why it will never work.

The terrestrial system can be fooled by conventional camouflage (i.e. a few leaves), not only this, as the first drone explodes it will alter the landscape and throw all of the other guidance systems into disarray and cause them all to crash and explode in the same place. This means that you are wasting maybe a whole swarm on a single tank or even a falling tree.

>>33604378
I love that drone! It sounds so happy!

>>33602220
Deploying airburst in 3 2 1. . .

>>33603410
the primary reason america shouldnt worry about nukes from the big NK

>>33607979
Lem is a genius, and this work was only one of great futuristic ideas. Read Mwgqbit Bomb if you want to dig into his works more.
Also, if I remember correctly they almost defeated the Invisible with some magnetic interference, but he replicated again. Sad!

>>33606941
>>33606962
so a million dollars trying to kill me where the original is a guy flying through the occassional 2 trees and never through the actual forest. I didnt know my life was so expensive ty robot swarm

>>33607048
it can clearly destroy billions of drones

>>33607979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible
Well they eventually postponed problem by
[spoiler]hacking drones sensory system[/spoiler]

>>33603403
Stop trying to fantasize about your glory days Phil. It didn't happen. It was ez mode. Sorry you joined the army at that time.

>>33608597

>Americans give drones to Ukraine
>Russian soldiers hack them and use them to counterspy on the ukrainian soldiers

Reminder that a few guys with birdshot and shotguns could decimate hundreds of drones in minutes, making them useless.

File: laughs_in_recycled_farts.jpg (27KB, 550x367px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 550x367px

>>33607932
This
Two of them per aircraft carrier IIRC

>>33603524
So essentially, whoever can macro fastest with their zerg rush will win futurewars?

USA is fucked, South Korea and China confirmed next-gen world superpowers.

>>33607415

Or shotguns.

>>33608138

Imagine how much it would cost and how vulnerable it would be to small-arms fire.

>>33602220
Someone's just going to develop a jammer which shuts this stuff down.

>>33602220
Fuck off shill. Your overpriced shit won't fool me.

>>33602220
All drone will suffer the same fate: jamming.

For swarm to be effective you need a link between each drone. Unless the drones are all autonomous AI. Then they would need to seek and destroy on their own, target acquisition and planning independent of the other drones.

Seems a little far fetched.

If drones are ever prevalent in warefare they will need to be AI otherwise real adversaries will just find a way to Jam their communication.

>>33606730
.45acp confirmed best anti-drone pistol round.

File: 1352336740511.jpg (233KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1280x851px

>>33607203

>>33606506
I welcome it.

>>33602220
>use drones
>FANS! MY ONLY WEAKENESS!

yeah no...

anyone who thinks infantry will be replaced by any kind of technology is bullshitting themselves.

File: beholder.jpg (71KB, 680x559px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 680x559px

>>33602220
cheeki) Microwave EMP panels swivel-mounted on a humvee.

breeki) Lasers/chaff blinding swarm sensors.

You're fucked. OP is dumb.

>>33603364
okay so what you're saying is 40-50 more years then?

>>33617736
We already have handheld jamming weapons and vehicle mounted anti-drone lasers. And lets face it, if anything is 50 years away, it's swarm warfare.

>>33613752
This is why army doesn't use radio coms. Oh, wait...

>>33618097
jamming radio communication doesn't work well because radio wave energy decreases with the square of the distance, inverse square law. Enemies too far away won't be jammed. With this suicide swarm idea the drones must get close to you, putting them in prime range of jammers.

File: turns off your radio.jpg (56KB, 736x484px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 736x484px

>>33618282
>jamming radio communication doesn't work
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-using-electronic-warfare-cloak-its-actions-syria-isis-nato-1523328

>>33618405
I said "doesn't work well", not "doesn't work".

>>33607979
I never liked Enders Game.
>Formics start attacking Terrans.
>Formics think we're non-sentient.
>A non-sentient, TECHNOLOGY USEING, species.
A better story would be the Formics hacking Enders mind through the Ansible.

I like the idea of swarms of drones but I think it'd be more cost effective to throw some kind of machine gun on it instead of making it a suicide drone. Once out of ammo, go back to base, replace battery, replenish ammo, redeploy. Maybe use more to suppress enemy advance until the cavalry arrives or for scouting and what not

Literally destroyed by birdshot.

>>33618498
They didn't think that humans are non-sentient, but that they are similar hive-mind species.