[HN Gopher] Quadcopters can now visually track targets more effe...
___________________________________________________________________
Quadcopters can now visually track targets more effectively
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 60 points
Date : 2023-10-27 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mosfet.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (mosfet.net)
| nativeit wrote:
| Related: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04781
| topspin wrote:
| I recently read statements from an Azov brigade commander in
| Ukraine that Russian Orlan-10 observation UAVs are a major
| problem. Russia is producing a lot of these UAVs and has been
| using them more heavily and effectively. Orlan-10s reveal targets
| for Lancet UAVs and other weapons. This leads to Ukrainian crews
| and weapons being destroyed and forces SPGs and other artillery
| away from effective positions.
|
| Orlan-10 is a vulnerable system. It's slow, low altitude, easily
| detected and fragile; basically just a militarized model
| airplane. A fast UAV designed to detect and kill Orlan-10 would
| be a huge asset. At the moment Ukraine is using precious and
| costly AA missiles for this.
|
| I'm thinking this tracking improvement would be a major help for
| anti-armor UAVs as well. One of the problems UAV operators have
| when attacking armor is losing FPV signal as the UAV gets close
| to the ground. If the terminal phase could be handed off to an
| onboard tracker it would vastly improve these weapons.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| How about soldiers on the ground with shotguns? Or are they too
| high for that?
| topspin wrote:
| "Low altitude" in this case is 1-2km. Small arms can't deal
| with that.
|
| Shotguns have been used to counter Lancet in terminal phase.
| But that's a desperation tactic. The goal would be that
| Lancet et al. is useless because the Russians are blind.
| empyrrhicist wrote:
| Wouldn't old school AA guns be perfect for that sort of
| thing?
| topspin wrote:
| No. The front is a huge; tens of kilometers deep and
| hundreds of kilometers long. You would need a stupid
| number of AA guns and crews to cover it all. The idea is
| fast hunter UAV that could sweep large areas and respond
| quickly to enemy UAVs.
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| AUTONOMOUS AA guns would be perfect for that sort of
| thing
|
| The US military has had Phalanx CIWS for decades to
| handle this type of threat
|
| what both Russia and Ukraine could use are cheaper lower
| caliber versions of this
| pixl97 wrote:
| And then the attackers will locate these expensive
| systems and attack with a cheap drone swarm of 10-15
| drones at once. Doesn't matter if you lose 9, if one gets
| past you're likely in trouble.
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| Exactly, so what is needed is a cheaper version of these
| weapons. A cheap drone swarm versus a cheap turret swarm
| built off the browning 50.cal rather than some complex 20
| mm chain gun.
| myself248 wrote:
| My understanding is that AA guns work best against
| targets the size of a fighter or bomber. As the target
| shrinks, so do your odds of a hit.
|
| Here's an Orlan-10 on its launch mount. Perspective means
| it appears larger than it actually is.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan-10#/media/File:Slavic
| Bro...
|
| So, no, not perfect. Probably not even within an order of
| magnitude of the same effectiveness. Possibly not even
| two orders.
| Arrath wrote:
| With radar directed[0] gunnery and proximity fuzed
| rounds, absolutely. For SHORAD, or short range air
| defense. You'd need a lot of guns parceled out over a lot
| of frontage to protect your positions.
|
| [0]Which, of course, means it has emissions that can be
| tracked, pinpointed, and targeted.
| paganel wrote:
| The only reasonable counter-tactic against cheap drones have
| been EW measures. They're by no means perfect but it's the
| best any of the two sides has at this moment (yes, it's
| better than the AA weaponry they have at their disposal).
|
| Here's a video [1] of a Ukrainian drone hitting Russian EW
| equipment on a tower and here's a Russian video [2]
| presenting their EW works against incoming Ukrainian drones.
|
| [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/17f
| bxo...
|
| [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/17g
| nna...
| FlyingBears wrote:
| Easy to defeat with automatic target recognition and
| tracking. You only need to get in the general vicinity and
| let the drone figure it out, which is what I suspect new
| Lancet is doing.
| paganel wrote:
| Yeah, even cheaper and lighter batteries will allow for
| even more processing to be carried out "locally", on the
| drone itself, with reasonable good automatic target
| recognition becoming viable.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Not for the larger surveillance drones, no. Those are a km
| up, you are unlikely to even know it's there.
|
| For small drones a shotgun is great... _if_ it's semi or full
| auto, _if_ the soldier knows exactly where a drone coming
| right at him is, and has time to prepare while it's still
| around 50 yards out.
|
| Outside of those conditions, still not great.
|
| Shotguns are roughly "effective" up to 100yards with slugs,
| and half of that with buckshot. Drones dropping grenades are
| generally well above 200 yards up, generally more like 500.
| So it's really only the suicide ones that can be reasonable
| targets. The problem is a purpose build FPV drone typically
| used in suicide runs can haul ass, and cover 50yards in a
| second, are hard to see and predict the path of, even when
| you know one is there. Consumer drones can generally cover 50
| yards in roughly 2-4 seconds.
|
| Trying to shoot one moving across your view dive bombing on
| something else is going to have you more likely accidentally
| shooting the drones target or something unintended rather
| than the drone itself.
|
| I do anticipate vehicle mounted scattergun systems meant for
| close in defense of drones though, as well as quickly/auto
| launched anti-drone drones for further off defense. More
| powerful drones would be needed for dealing with stuff 1km up
| and beyond though, the smaller stuff will struggle getting
| close to that.
| spanktheuser wrote:
| This puzzle is really starting to fit together nicely but SO
| FRUSTRATING that I still can't tell whether it's an image of
| Skynet or Big Brother.
|
| Perhaps if I add one more piece...
| konschubert wrote:
| Maybe you should rather worry how to help the people who are
| fighting for their lives.
| topspin wrote:
| We should worry about both. What we shouldn't do is let
| allies get slaughtered because Russia can make a lot of
| model airplanes, or bankrupt ourselves killing them with
| million dollar AA missiles. There _must_ be a better way.
| zyang wrote:
| The best way to kill drone is with better drones. We are at the
| dawn of a new arms race.
| nradov wrote:
| That remains to be seen. Cannons, lower-cost missiles, or
| directed energy weapons might end up being more effective at
| killing drones. This is a rapidly evolving field and I don't
| think anyone can reliably predict the outcome.
|
| The big problem is target detection. Small quadcopters may be
| able to track nearby targets, but they lack the sensors
| needed to detect targets at useful ranges. At a minimum
| defensive systems will still need large, expensive sensors
| mounted on ground platforms, aerostats, or larger fixed-wing
| drones.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I believe currently most 'kills' of small drones are
| because of EW ('electronic warfare' i.e. jamming and
| spoofing, both for the control link and for GPS
| navigation), which causes them to crash or land in enemy-
| controlled location.
| topspin wrote:
| > The big problem is target detection.
|
| Generally yes, detection is hard. The Orlan-10 case,
| however, is easier. They can often be seen and/or heard
| from the ground and they are transmitting a live video
| feed, so their RF profile is a dead giveaway. If a fast,
| fox hunter counter UAV could be directed to the vicinity
| and then pick up the target efficiently a small crew could
| cover wide areas.
|
| I imagine something like a fast, traditional airplane form
| with directional antennae in the wings for long range
| tracking, and visual tracking (as per the linked story) at
| short range. The actual weapon would be a small firearm:
| the targets are fragile.
| FlyingBears wrote:
| Russian Lancet new generation already uses target locking. I
| suspect if it is possible to clone a piece of equipment, the
| only answer is an economy of scale because neither side will
| have technological advantage.
| runlaszlorun wrote:
| Anyone know of any good sources on the topic to stay up on the
| recent developments?
| detritus wrote:
| Just because it's along the lines of what I've been thinking-
| such drones could have longish lengths of 'fishing wire'
| trailing them, and perhaps some sort of expansive spiders web,
| so that their engagement with such drones in a counter drone
| environment might aid bringing them down by snagging the
| aggressor's propellor
| _visgean wrote:
| > At the moment Ukraine is using precious and costly AA
| missiles for this.
|
| Apparently gepards seem to have quite a success against
| shaheds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWJ97KcnmA
|
| In the video one of the soldiers mentions that usually 3 rounds
| are enough, according to this:
| https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/09/05/germany...
| the price per one round is 181000000 / 300000 = 603 USD. I am
| pretty sure that contract will involve other things to make the
| restart of production viable so the total cost per round will
| probably be lower in following contracts.. But 1800 to down the
| drone does seem super cheap compared to rockets...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5_F4_Eod8 this is the next
| version of the same concept. But it seems that the laser
| mounted next to it will be even cheaper in the long run
| https://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/air-defence/...
| topspin wrote:
| Yes, the Gepard platform has been a real success. Gepard has
| been most effective defending high value fixed assets from
| simple minded long range UAVs and cruise missiles.
|
| When dealing with Orlan-10 however, the problem is different.
| Here you must defend mobile forces, close the the front from
| observation and attack UAVS that are remotely piloted. It's a
| whole different problem and there will never be enough
| Gepards and Gepard crews to sweep the skies of Orlan-10, and
| if there were they would become targets themselves.
| asoneth wrote:
| Reminds me of the Slaughterbots video [1] that the Autonomous
| Weapons project [2] released five years ago.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw?si=L1z_NYk77BHAbFel
|
| [2] https://autonomousweapons.org
| shrubble wrote:
| A dystopian future awaits... once Starlink is globally active, a
| drone can locate and track any human, anywhere on the face of the
| earth. Starlink communication will eventually be compact enough
| to be mounted on a quadcopter...
| purpleblue wrote:
| I think anti-facial recognition makeup will become a lot more
| prevalent.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Depends on if the target is a specific person or "any human
| trying to run away"
| stormfather wrote:
| I'll have a Klaus Schwab mask on the back of my head, like
| the tiger hunters of old.
| Footnote7341 wrote:
| completely ineffective, the more you research the more bits
| of information you realize are leaking off every single thing
| that makes you unique. your gait, smell, heart-beat
| (detectable at range), posture etc are all just as
| identifiable by a computer as your face.
| _jal wrote:
| Cheap, individual-seeking flying bombs are very close to being
| available to folks who can soldier and experiment a bit.
|
| I rather suspect a civilian anti-drone defense market is
| starting to spin up now...
| endisneigh wrote:
| It already is. There a phones that support it and copters that
| can tow that weight.
| qwertox wrote:
| How many years until cops use drones and very fast robotic dogs
| to chase and apprehend people?
|
| This is not meant as some kind of criticism, I believe that this
| is a fact which will become true regardless of us approving or
| disapproving it.
|
| I mean from a technical standpoint, where the on-board AI and
| tracking abilities as well as the physical ones will be so
| capable that they will be able to replace humans chasing others,
| with the ability of evading thrown stones or other objects,
| possibly using tasers or fine but strong nets to prevent the
| chased person from continuing to flee.
|
| A bit less than 10 years? Then how much longer until this is no
| longer a novelty?
| dmoy wrote:
| Drones? Already, today.
|
| Robotic dogs to apprehend people? I dunno.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Not only robotic dogs apprehending people, robotic dogs with
| posh English accents.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzOBZUFzTw
| wooshboats wrote:
| https://youtu.be/Bmy-Cr2bkZ0
|
| they almost do that at the end.
| colechristensen wrote:
| This would be great for car chases. Police cars in high speed
| chases too often lead to collateral damage and lots of people
| get away when police disengage as a matter of policy. A drone
| follower would be a great improvement.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Controversial Opinion: This is a good idea. There is zero need
| to make these Black Mirror lethal but tracking and apprehending
| is a scary job and Cops are human (there are also bad cops).
| Automating that process seems like Step 1 to getting out of our
| current strategy of
|
| "Well cops are bad, so we can't enforce any laws".
|
| Well-intentioned ACLU action and Public backlash have made
| these very hard to roll out, but long term, this may be the
| only the solution (along with wholesale long-term welfare
| overhaul of course)
| bad_alloc wrote:
| > There is zero need to make these Black Mirror lethal
|
| Nope, loot ak Ukraine. And military surplus can easily end up
| with the police.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| I'm assuming of course we have some political control here.
| Just a walking robot was shamed out of existence [1]. So
| the public has some control over what is and isn't
| acceptable.
|
| We don't need to accept lethal robots, but wholesale saying
| "no robotic equipment at all" will simply leave us in the
| logjam we have now between bad cops and zero enforcement.
|
| [1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/nyregion/nypd-robot-
| dog-b...
| crooked-v wrote:
| > zero need
|
| There's zero need for local rural cops to have MRAPs and SWAT
| teams, and yet...
| chmod775 wrote:
| Meta, but the way you felt you had to word your opinion
| really rubs me the wrong way.
|
| Are we really at a point where we need to have a preface, two
| mid-sentence disclaimers, and carefully worded language just
| so one does not get torn apart by one's own in-group?
|
| If that's where we're at, I'd sooner support the other camp,
| whatever it is.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| These issues are complex and its okay to accept that the
| conversation needs to be complex as well.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > "Well cops are bad, so we can't enforce any laws"
|
| When did that become our current strategy? I haven't seen any
| sign of it in my neck of the woods.
| huytersd wrote:
| Would not work very well in an urban environment where you
| could duck into the front of a business and go out the back
| way. Maybe drones + ability to remotely lock the doors of any
| building in the city. Or a drone swarm with built in maps of
| the layouts of all the buildings in the city so if someone goes
| into a building, they automatically split up and start watching
| all the exits.
| piyh wrote:
| I've seen videos of Ukraine where operators hit specific
| windows in high rises where they know Russian meetings are
| happening
| zeusk wrote:
| Say no more! There's a YC funded startup on it already
|
| https://paladindrones.io
| jamestimmins wrote:
| As robotic dogs that apprehend suspects play a major role in
| Fahrenheit 451, this is one of those things that should really
| make us pause and reflect.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| How many years until a domestic terrorism attack operated by a
| drone pilot followed by us never finding the person
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Better chance of that happening by the end of 2024 than of
| Twitter being a dominant financial platform by the same time,
| to cross the streams of current HN threads.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Do drones make it significantly easier to attack without
| being caught than, say, timed explosives or even firearms?
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Apprehend, not in the foreseeable future.
|
| Chase, however, I'm surprised we haven't been seeing for at
| least a few years. Here in Chicago, following a high-profile
| bystander death resulting from a police pursuit, the department
| adopted a new pursuit policy that effectively bans vehicular
| pursuits in a majority of situations.
|
| While many contend that this policy goes too far, it's
| indisputable that vehicular pursuits _are_ dangerous. The
| potential for tracking, for example, a robbery suspect from the
| air (with a considerably lower bar than scrambling one of the
| city 's two police helicopters) via drone seems like an obvious
| win for safety, both in reducing dangerous pursuits and
| apprehending dangerous offenders.
| ranting-moth wrote:
| >How many years until cops use drones and very fast robotic
| dogs to chase and apprehend people?
|
| I'd go farther than that. I'd wager that within 10 years,
| someone will have been shot by a mostly autonomous drone
| operated by a police unit somewhere. An operator will have had
| a approve the shot. We are probably 20-30 years from fully
| autonomous takedown of terrorists.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Black Mirror: Metalhead.
|
| It's one of the best episodes.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalhead_(Black_Mirror)
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Paper seems really thin on details on how the targets are
| initialized. It mentions a "foundation detector" and claims its
| better than YOLO results, but then routes that conversation to
| the Ultralytics library (which has implementations of YOLO and
| SAM).
|
| Am I missing something here? Is it SAM? That would make sense ,
| SAM is amazing and running SAM (fastSAM?) onboard a quadrotor is
| a great achievement.
| jjkeddo199 wrote:
| Is our humanity really so far gone? At this rate, researchers
| should come together and refuse to publish further research in
| this area.
|
| I would hope UN can come together and at a minimum make an arms
| treaty to limit/prevent/undo development of AI tools that
| track/hurt individual humans this way. At a pathetic bare-bones
| minimum, these drones should never be allowed to kill or maim
| humans autonomously, and must be hardcoded to "accept a
| surrender" if someone stops holding their hands up.
|
| If we limited chemical weapons, we can limit these terrifying
| abominations too.
| _visgean wrote:
| Isnt the same technology used on consumer drones
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7cg4Gi_BU ? This is just a
| bit of an improvement on all that.
|
| > I would hope UN can come together and at a minimum make an
| arms treaty to limit/prevent/undo development of AI
|
| Well good luck getting US / China to sign something like that.
| colonCapitalDee wrote:
| The only reason chemical and biological weapons aren't used in
| warfare is because they just aren't very useful. An equivalent
| amount of high explosives is more lethal, easier to deliver,
| easier to transport and store, and less dangerous to your own
| troops. Which sucks, because it implies that arms control
| measures for landmines, cluster munitions, autonomous drones,
| and nuclear weapons are probably doomed to failure.
|
| https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| what could possibly go right
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-27 23:01 UTC)