[HN Gopher] Bug drone for UK army that weights 196g, has 40 mins...
___________________________________________________________________
Bug drone for UK army that weights 196g, has 40 mins autonomy and
2km range
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 64 points
Date : 2020-12-29 18:55 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.baesystems.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.baesystems.com)
| mattivc wrote:
| I work with nano-UAVs. I am very skeptical that the 40 minute
| flight time is even close to being real.
|
| Especially with a quadcopter design. They are way to inefficient.
| dimatura wrote:
| I haven't looked into this drone in depth, but I think it may
| be feasible. The DJI Mini2, which any civilian can buy for
| $449, has a similar size, weighs 249g, and advertises a flight
| time of 30 minutes. (In my experience with the Mini 1, it's
| plausible).
|
| Side note: the DJI Mini 1 is an excellent drone -- stable
| flight, great camera, and great range. I wouldn't be surprised
| if it outperforms this 'Bug' drone by most metrics, except for
| the critical (at least for military purposes) "not being made
| by a Chinese company" metric.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It's hard to express how awesome the Mini is. IMO it's an
| underappreciated technological achievement at the once-in-a-
| hundred-years level. Only a few years ago, it was hard to get
| a decent digital camera for $400 and change. The Mini is a
| decent camera that also happens to _fly._
|
| When that realization hit me, it reminded me of the first
| time I saw a $29 DVD player for sale at WalMart. Some
| incredible things had to happen to make that possible, almost
| all of of them going completely unnoticed by almost everyone.
|
| The BAE drone probably costs $50,000 apiece, and doesn't
| appear to be substantially different from the current-
| generation (or even the original) Mini.
| jleahy wrote:
| That's because of the energy density (per mass) of Li-Ion
| batteries. You basically hit a wall at 20 minutes that's very
| hard to push past (it almost feels like a law of physics).
|
| But maybe they're using non-rechargeable batteries: zinc-air or
| lithium-iron-disulfide (ie. a 'lithium' AA battery) or
| something else? Trade offs are different for military.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| The amount of batteries soldiers need to carry is ridiculous;
| a 72 hour patrol load out includes up to 25 lbs of batteries
| already!
| plouffy wrote:
| Based on the info sheet "A quick change battery" would
| suggest they went for the non-rechargeable route.
| azalemeth wrote:
| The classic example of a good military-only battery would
| be those using molten salts as an electrolyte (typically at
| 150-500 oC) [1]. Very high energy density (around 74 Ahr/kg
| [2] compared to LiPo's ~50 Ahr/kg [3]) and very high power
| density. Not finger friendly.
|
| [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery [2]
| https://global-sei.com/technology/tr/bn76/pdf/76-06.pdf [3]
| https://blog.ampow.com/lipo-battery-size-chart/
| Someone wrote:
| If one could make such a battery small enough for this
| drone, I expect you would need all its power to keep the
| salt molten.
| dimatura wrote:
| I don't think it necessarily means non-rechargeable. Since
| charging usually takes a long time, generally in the field
| you carry a bunch of batteries charged ahead of time and
| swap them as needed.
| bowmessage wrote:
| Don't a lot of the DJI models have a ~30 minute flight time?
| Point taken though, that there's a wall we hit with current
| battery tech.
| extropy wrote:
| The DJI drones that can do that are significantly larger. A
| 250 gram DJI mavic mini can do 30 minutes and with
| significantly larger propellers.
|
| The efficiency goes down with smaller blade sizes (more
| losses to vortexes) so from the photo 20 min is the max to
| expect with regular lipo batteries.
| Tepix wrote:
| The Mini 2 manages 31 minutes at 249g and it features a 3
| axis gimbal for the camera. This military drone doesn't
| appear to have any gimbal.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It says autonomy, not flight time. They may intend this thing
| to land and remain active as a remote camera for much ot its
| mission.
| leo-leo wrote:
| I dont find it that unbelievable, there are a number of youtube
| videos of hobbyist grade quadcopters with what I believe are
| larger motors running 20-30 minutes on a pair of 18650 cells
| albeit without any autonomous capability.
|
| https://youtu.be/BOZStU-QCSc
| StavrosK wrote:
| Hahah that's fantastic, how that thing even takes off with a
| 1S2P 18650 I'll never know. That's 100 grams just for the
| batteries.
| TedShiller wrote:
| Also provides plastic pollution
| chillax wrote:
| See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hornet_Nano
| dimatura wrote:
| That is the cutest drone!
|
| I have one of these https://www.eachine.com/EACHINE-E10W-Mini-
| Quadcopter-Wifi-FP..., which is roughly the same size.
|
| It has a functional camera which records to a micro SD card.
| The image quality is crap, but you can't expect much at $29.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| "Although the Army is seeking a mini-drone for use by
| individual squads through the Soldier Borne Sensors (SBS)
| program, the individually handmade Black Hornet is seen as too
| expensive for large-scale deployment, with a unit costing as
| much as US$195,000"
| chillax wrote:
| They've probably trimmed the price somewhat since 2016:
| https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26359/the-pocket-
| sized...
| epicureanideal wrote:
| But just the fact that this exists at any price means that it
| will eventually become ubiquitous, unless something even
| smaller and more capable takes its place. That price was in
| 2016, so who knows if it's already down to $100k or below. In
| 10-20 years, these things will be priced like laptops and be
| far more capable than the current models.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Reminds me of the DJI Mavic Mini. How much does it cost?
| 1337biz wrote:
| The Dji Mini 2 has a range of up to 6 miles with OcuSync. 239g
| and about 30min flying time. Quite close to the specs of the BA
| system.
| grecy wrote:
| I have the Mavic Mini 1.
|
| It weighs 249g (which is 27% more than this drone).
|
| It also realistically only flies for about 15-20 minutes before
| needing a recharge, which is half as much as this drone.
|
| So while similar to the Mavic Mini, I think it's clear they're
| not in the same league.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Note that the cutoff for some regulations in the US is 250g.
|
| https://fpvfc.org/sub-250g-regulations
| laptop-man wrote:
| for 199 you can get
| https://www.racedayquads.com/collections/all-pre-built-
| quads...
|
| close to 1 to 2 mile range (depending on obstructions) 30 min
| battery as long as your not freestyleing lol. (assuming you
| have everything else for it. a decent starter set up is close
| to 200/300 dollars but is compatable with any drone you can
| stick a rx in)
| throwaway4good wrote:
| They are probably also not in the same price range.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| If it could take 50g of cargo, that would be just one run over
| the border to pay it off, if you know what I mean. I guess
| cartels would be all over this "bug".
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Two thought triggered by this article.
|
| 1: What alternative designs for quadcopter would be viable for
| small drones? Some lighter-than-air quality? I assume the
| complexity involved in making a helicopter collective would be
| too heavy. Is it really quadcopters all the way down?
|
| 2: Why not smaller? Would an even smaller drone be unfeasible due
| to battery weight and square/cube law issues? What's stopping us
| from gram-scale drones? Presumably the interaction with the air
| would create new problems and things to take advantage of.
| dimatura wrote:
| There's plenty of multirotor VTOL drone designs out there,
| which combine the practicality of vertical take-off and landing
| (hence, "VTOL") with the greater efficiency of wings for longer
| range flight. Many proof-of-concept delivery drones I've seen
| are of this kind.
|
| re: size, you can definitely make smaller drones. There's
| plenty of cute and surprisingly flyable drones out there that
| are less than 6 cm in diameter, some even with cameras.
| However, there's a few drawbacks at smaller sizes:
|
| - Less power. They can fly fine indoors, but they'll be swept
| away by any strong winds. - Less space for electronics/camera
| and batteries, so image quality and flight time will suffer.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Once things get small wings and propellers get much less
| efficient. For really small drones people are looking for
| inspiration amongst insects so lots of flapping.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Interesting idea to fill a drone with helium, then presumably
| it could have smaller motors or longer flight time.
| jleahy wrote:
| Or have wings.
| dfsegoat wrote:
| > _" It was the only nano-UAV able to cope with the
| uncompromising weather during a recent Army Warfighting
| Experiment (AWE) event"_
|
| I hadn't thought too much about how UAVs of any class will need
| to cope with adverse weather conditions. Seems like that will
| become an even larger variable in military planning, as UAVs etc.
| become more prevalent.
|
| E.g. it might be hard to totally replace a manned surveillance
| platform with an unmanned system, if the manned system is 'all-
| weather capable' and the unmanned is not.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The recent Azerbaijan-Armenia war saw extensive use of UAVs,
| and yes, weather (e.g. fog in the mountains or the lack of it)
| was an important factor mostly because of its impact on UAV
| usage.
| bencollier49 wrote:
| It feels like they're paying ludicrous money for these. Can
| someone in the know explain what differentiates these from shop-
| bought or scratch-built drones?
|
| As per this article below, the Nano 1A UAV Quadcopter Bug drone
| sells for PS4,500 (a tenth of the price of another model, the
| Black Hornet Nano):
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drone-nano-b...
|
| I appreciate that this is probably a variation on the old canard
| that goes "I could have written that government software in a
| weekend", but it does seem pricey.
| vinw wrote:
| It's probably because of the low volume. They've only sold 30
| so far, and the R&D costs need to be recovered.
| bencollier49 wrote:
| If the selling point is stability in a storm, then the
| differentiation is in software, which is interesting. You'd
| expect the price of things like this to tumble.
|
| One could imagine great dark clouds of these things in battle
| over perhaps Eastern Europe or the South China Sea in ten
| years' time.
| ta8645 wrote:
| And roving cities assigning tickets for illegal parking and
| all manner of other infractions.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| My guess it is built with military grade components which are
| more expensive and has got embedded emphasis on reliability.
| That probably includes custom molds that can be insanely
| expensive for small runs. I can imagine the firmware must
| conform to a higher standards than consumer grade firmware.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| [x] Doubt
|
| I've built dozens of multirotors and you can clearly see
| AMAXinno motors on the thing, (https://uavtek.co.uk/uav-
| fleet/bug) plus the big bulging 18650s. 99.9% chance it's
| using a COTS multirotor firmware or some variant of
| Ardupilot, and the camera looks like an old-school analog FPV
| camera. From the specs sounds like they have it running on
| the 5.8Ghz ISM band, so the thing will fall out of the sky
| the instant it encounter interference from some poorly
| configured consumer electronics.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Shop bought drones don't have arbitrary, often nonsense
| requirements. This one advertises that it'll work in 50MPH
| winds. How common are soldiers dealing with combat in 50MPH
| winds? It's likely there are other, similarly arbitrary and
| nonsensical demands that were placed on these.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| From the article:
|
| "It boasts a stealthy low visual profile and the ability to fly
| even in strong winds of more than 50mph. It was the only nano-
| UAV able to cope with the uncompromising weather during a
| recent Army Warfighting Experiment (AWE) event hosted by the
| Ministry of Defence's Future Capability Group."
| bencollier49 wrote:
| > It boasts a stealthy low visual profile
|
| The one in the article's picture looks like a flying brick. A
| lot of money to be made in this field - there's a low barrier
| to entry in the market.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| The problem as I see it is that many, many people have the
| skills to compete, but not the capital. And often are
| working so much that they don't have spare energy to invest
| every weekend for years to build an MVP.
|
| I know some will say that sounds like making excuses, but
| the examples I've seen of entrepreneurs have been people
| who haven't actually had to work very hard at their day
| jobs. They aren't totally burned out at the end of the day.
|
| I wish I knew a way to fix this situation. The economy
| could operate far more efficiently than it is, and that
| would be better for all of us.
| dimatura wrote:
| I don't know for sure what's inside this drone, but it's
| probably because they had to pay for developing and building a
| custom small drone. I suspect DJI or Autel can build better
| drones at a far lower price, but the UK military probably does
| not want to rely on a Chinese company for their drones.
|
| Maybe they've could have turned to Parrot, which is French? Or
| maybe even that would not be desirable, especially after
| Brexit.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| You need to separate R&D amortization from marginal price,
| otherwise you're deep in "ask a silly question, get a silly
| answer" territory.
| sirtimbly wrote:
| There's maybe $300 of off-the-shelf components (at retail
| prices) in the pictured air unit. It's the R&D time. The
| software dev and testing of the the whole system would be super
| expensive. Also there's no mention of their ground station
| design, how is it controlled by the operator, there's a lot of
| money and research that has to go into that half of the
| problem. Soldiers wont put up with the operational
| peculiarities that hobbyist will. Drones are incredibly fragile
| because of the weight limitations. 40 minutes of flight time is
| amazing, probably 2x the best time a hobbyist could build with
| off-the-shelf parts at that size class.
| StavrosK wrote:
| It's a toothpick drone with two 18650 batteries on it, I
| doubt it costs more than $100. There's video above of a
| hobbyist doing the same thing. I don't know how autonomous
| this one is, but most quadcopters nowadays run STM32F4
| processors, so, as you say, the software would be what's
| expensive.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Do you think they built custom batteries or got something off the
| shelf? If off the shelf which pack do you think it is?
| KamiCrit wrote:
| Picture looks like two 18650's or the likes of.
| neom wrote:
| I'd be super curious to know how loud they are, main problem I
| see with drones being stealthy is they also tend to be quite
| noisy.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Having played a little with micro-drones as a hobbyist, the
| ability to have an "eye in the sky" is amazing. Just today, we
| got a little turned around on a hike -- in less than a minute I
| was able to see our location from above and which direction to
| bushwhack a shortcut back to the main trail. I can see how this
| would be invaluable in a "strategic" situation.
|
| Even the tiny ones are noisy and give away their position
| immediately. The effective range is relatively short, so you know
| if there's a drone, the operator is nearby. Weather is a limiting
| factor -- winds will tax the battery, and rain or wet snow will
| effectively disable them.
|
| I wonder what counter-methods will be used against drones in the
| field. Really accurate markspeople? Portable EMPs? From what I've
| read, around airports etc they've been experimenting with
| enforcing no-fly zones with birds of prey!
| KamiCrit wrote:
| I wonder if battlefields of the future will feature kamikaze bug
| drones.
| realmod wrote:
| Drones are integral to current warfare and will continue to
| become even more important. And as we've seen in the Caucuses,
| the nations with the most effective drones will easily conquer
| other countries without or with worse drones.
|
| Aside from that, we've come really far with drones which are
| amazing technology-wise. We have small drones like these with a
| 2km-range and large drones that can carry huge payloads, i.e.
| payloads in the tons of kg, while also having ranges in the
| thousands of kilometres. Although it is remarkable technology-
| wise, I believe it foreshadows a horrible future for humans that
| we have such advanced murder weapons. And especially now that
| drones have become cheap to produce.
| ku-man wrote:
| I'd rather die by a IA aimed bullet than by several hacks with
| a battle axe.
|
| To put it in Hollywood terms, I'd much prefer be killed by the
| Terminator than Conan the Barbarian.
| eloff wrote:
| Compared to nuclear and biological weapons, drones don't get my
| pulse up.
|
| A future where terrorist groups can produce their own weapons
| of mass destruction seems like it may well be on the horizon.
| Through exponential improvements in the underlying technology.
| Crispr for biology and laser based uranium enrichment for
| nuclear.
|
| I think it's entirely possible that the great filter might be
| ahead of us and might consist of our own weapons exceeding our
| ability to manage them responsibly.
|
| Happy New Year all!
| newen wrote:
| Hundreds of thousands of autonomous drone killbots the size
| of bats flying around do get my pulse up.
| m1gu3l wrote:
| Why do this when you can gas a bunch of people or blow them
| up old school for way cheaper? Not sold
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Harder to do at range.
|
| I'm glad I'm not the Secret Service. A drone swarm has to
| be rapidly becoming one of their scary scenarios for
| something like inaugurations.
| vkou wrote:
| A single medium-caliber mortar is a five-hundred-year-old
| piece of technology that can be carried and assembled by
| two men, has an effective range of ~1,000 to 5,000 yards,
| does not require line of sight to the target, can be
| operated by a high-school dropout, and has a _kill radius
| of 30 meters_.
|
| One can probably be picked up from an army surplus
| warehouse somewhere in the former Soviet Union/(some
| current conflict zone), for an ~$X,000 USD bribe, or
| alternatively, manufactured by a literate, mildly
| motivated individual with a high tolerance for personal
| risk, a welder, a lathe, a tool-shed, and an outhouse in
| the mountains.
|
| Given that we live in a world where gunpowder has been
| invented, you will have to pardon me if I'm more
| concerned about the dangers of lunatics with mundane
| explosives, and delivery systems thereof.
| varjag wrote:
| Mortar is hard to aim (even with modern aids), in a
| terrain that you haven't ranged already.
| Alupis wrote:
| With a cell phone and Google Maps, you can get distance,
| elevation, obstacles, and more with good-enough
| precision.
|
| Or, even use our own mission planning software against us
| - ATAK[1][2].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Team_Awareness_Kit
|
| [2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ata
| kmap.ap...
| m1gu3l wrote:
| Thanks for joining me on whatever list we are now on :)
| vkou wrote:
| We don't live in a James Bond movie, any non-state actor
| who wants to kill people will have a much easier time of
| doing something incredibly boring and mundane, like buying
| an automatic weapon, or building a bomb.
|
| You are vastly underestimating the difficulty of
| manufacturing hundreds of thousands of _anything_ in
| secrecy.
| realmod wrote:
| Sure but even then, those groups could use these long-ranged
| and relatively cheap drones to deliver all those horrific
| weapons. Huge rockets and such is fortunately prohibitively
| expensive and hard to manage. Whereas drones compared to
| rockets, are much cheaper and easier to manage could easily
| substitute those rockets and they would also probably be able
| to evade our defensive systems. For example, Turkish drones
| destroying Russian anti-air defense in the
| Armenian/Azerbajian war.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| Cool! Almost makes me forget that BAE Systems defrauded the
| American public by bribing Michael Chertoff to buy full body
| scanners from BAE Systems for $3B. Chertoff then joined BAE
| Systems as a Chairman of the Board.
|
| http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/chertoff-joins-defe...
|
| https://www.aofs.org/2010/04/12/secretary-michael-chertoff-b...
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-29 23:00 UTC)