Spot on. We just had an example of an ignorant idiot of a governor in Arizona veto a bill disallowing foreign ownership of land next/near to military bases. The leadership in the US is woefully uncreative and naive. China is actively prosecuting a gray war against the US right NOW and our politicians still act like they're dealing with a commercial competitor and not a malign actor seeking to destroy and supplant us.
In 1900 the Tank was a Gamechanger. In 2000 it was the Drone.
The topic should be taken very seriously, as it is not far off from developing and carrying out Swarm-Controlled Attacks.
Investment: Assuming an ETA of one billion and saying that one drone costs $1,000 to manufacture, with this investment, we could cover a million drones. And what does a single fifth-generation fighter jet cost? Here the relation becomes somewhat apparent.
The loading of drones can be automated and controlled via software. Each drone has an ID, which can be explicitly called out to. The loaded goods can also be automatically created in large quantities and transported to a location where loading takes place.
Tactical control: steering a swarm with the developed software is child's play with a little practice from any intelligent being. Just-in-time tactical decisions are coordinated with redundancy executed. Redundancy for ensuring success. To achieve this, the vehicles can swarm and attack from all sides, three dimensionally targeting the goal.
The topic is not yet over, much will surprise us, no question. Human imagination has no limits. But to end it all needs one thing:
IMO some attack is more probable by terrorists. E.g. terrorists put FPV drones on roofs of some buildings while operating them from other places. They may attack some public airports, train stations, crow gatherings (concerts), political meetings, electric substations, etc. EWs will be used by police regularly. My 2cents on shares on companies making them.
That's a good solution but the tech is moving so fast it's already out-of-date. Fully autonomous drones and loitering munitions are expected to make their debut in Ukraine very soon. They make EW jamming irrelevant unfortunately. Point defence vehicles equipped in the way Benjamin suggests are now going into production. That s an amazingly fast turnaround from concept to production. Less than two years in some cases. But they too already near-obsolete. You cannot jam fiber optic FPVs and if they swarm at grass-cutter elevations (as both Russia and Ukraine have done with them) they overwhelm kinetic defences. Maybe save your money and don't invest in EW. A better investment might be in netting manufacturers and construction companies who can build cope cages or hardened shelters.
Assassination by drones. Could somebody outside Ukraine or Russia stop a horde of drones today? From close vicinity? Of course you need to strike the right target at the right time, but otherwise?
Nice article, but IMHO the author is overshooting it. War and Peace are different situations. Changing the law, massive changes to civilian infrastructure, what is next? It sounds like the usual argument for permanently listing to all and each privat communication.
"The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”"
I wonder if the first real attempts to counter this will involve setting up giant nets around and over whole airbases... (yes, with "gates" to allow planes to actually use these bases)
Yes. Although giant nets over an entire airbase might be a little impracticable. But protecting aircraft and installations with nets or cope cages is the best solution at the moment. It's what Ukraine and Russia are doing on vulnerable logistics routes. And if those strategic bombers had mesh cope cages around them, it would have been much harder (but not impossible) for the drones to hit their targets.
However, keeping individual aircraft inside nets or cope cages as they are being prepared for a sortie might also be impractical. :) Easier than an entire base, that's for sure.
It's what the Russians will do. After all, they leave the blast doors to their munitions bunkers wide open. But, seriously, it is easy to build an isolation gate to defend against that kind of thing. However, what the Americans will do is build some kind of gold-plated system that functions worse than chain-linked fencing.
It's just that a giant net sounds like the perfect "army-style solution" for some career general in charge:
- sounds crazy, but easy to picture and explain (and to give orders to the guys used to sweeping parade grounds with crowbars);
- not needing help of any of these pesky smart engineers always coming up with "reliable" tech solutions which then fail to protect the bombers from simple quad copters;
- implementable with "simple" materials (as long as you can get THAT much of them) and a lot of free unqualified workforce (something "the army" always has more than enough of), and I guess they don't worry much about "clustering soldiers together" at that distance from the frontline;
Plus, if they end up leaving one side of the base completely open just to allow the planes to take off and land, that's still three sides less than now. Should be easier to guard if you know the drones can only get in from one direction (as long as there are no easily identifiable holes on the other sides, of course).
Yeah, but there is no way to protect against every style of attack with FPVs. Think of all those B-2s parked in a line on Diego Garcia. That 30% of the US's strategic bomber force. Iran would need only a handful of Magura 5-style drone carriers towed within range to take them out. You can bet they're being built right now.
I guess the point is not that defences have to be built. But they're not doing so already.
Томе я маю до вас декілька питань, і розумію що вони не по темі але.
Скажіть будь ласка скільки має пускових установок під іскандери, якщо ви володієте такою інформацією, і яка кількість потенційно знищених, була б успіхом?
I'm a bit older than teenagers, so I remember the war against global terrorism. Also, I remember the conflict between NATO and Serbia in 1999, which was the war too. So, wars aren't illegal; they are the way to resolve a dispute. Then, my opinion about the Ardupilot software. According to the today's conditions of Trump's mental health, I'm not surprised if he puts sanctions on Ukraine. Ukraine will lose updates for Ardupilot. Ukrainian developers can replace Ardupilot, but they need time, and of course, all this time, Ukraine will have additional losses in manpower and equipment.
I don't think there was a single day in documented human history when someone wasn't at war with someone else. That makes wars common, not necessarily legal. E.g. aggression is officially considered an international crime (by some, at least) nowadays, and a war isn't really possible without an aggression by at least one side. Even russia has a criminal code article that makes "waging an aggressive war" a crime. The fact that anyone with enough power and confidence ignores it or calls it something else (like a "special military operation"), doesn't make it exactly legal either, it's just that nobody of consequence cares about legality and the rest can't do anything about it.
Point is, when someone is at war, no legal matters will stop them from weaponizing anything they can get their hands on. It's just the way it is. As for Trump - sure, nobody knows what he will do next (not even himself), but I wouldn't expect him to care one bit about some open-source developer (and how much legal ties to USA do they have, anyway? I would expect open-source "dev team & community" to be international).
And we all remember Musk trying to interfere with military usage of Starlink. Of course, this was before Trump, but Ardupilot devs aren't Musks either...
Trucks, ships ... but what about buildings (or even empty areas) owned by e.g. Chinese businesses? Imagine scenario where every AFB (including those with ICBM) would attacked by hundreds or even thousands drones (stacked in those buildings or in containers on parking lots etc) ... PRCies are boasting they're making 500k FPV drones *per month* (and train operators for them) with options to raise to 700k per month if needed. Now, what/who would you say they plan to use such amount against? My opinion is they plan decapitating strike against USA, attacking simultaneously civilian and military leadership and any means of ranged projection of power - airplanes, ICBMs (would you dare to open silo if you know there are FPV swarms all around base?), moored ships and submarines, critical infrastructure etc.
There are rent by the month storage units outside the main gate of every military base in the country - why buy when you can rent storage / prepping / launching facilities. Or simply hit key transformers to roll a cascade thru the electrical network creating widespread blackouts. I'll stop there (I'm used to red teaming) - I'm simply surprised it took so long to get to this point. The writing has been on the wall for years.
Precisely. And answer is still the same - nobody really takes the threat seriously. It's the 80’ once again - nobody took terrorists (or their spinsor states’ intentions) seriously even if they kidnapped or murdered VIPs and exploded bombs. Nowadays, a hostile power wanting to reenact Day of Infamy doesn't need 6 aircraft carriers, just few ten or hundred thousands drones.
As to buying vs. renting: owned spaces for building stores of drones far from inquisitive persons’ eyes, rented spaces for actual attack.
It seems they may already be doing surveillance based on what happens near Airforce bases in the US. We always seem to prepare for the last war, and as soon as drones became a force multiplier in Ukraine and Russia, the US stayed true to past performance, and missed an opportunity to get ahead of the situation.
Thanks Benjamin. I repeat a question I asked Don and Tom here, as you might be interested in exploring / discussing it: "Anti drone drones. E.g. Wild Hornets' "Shark" - right now its a FPV human piloted system, apparently AI targeting is being developed for it. My questions: Could and should it be made into an IADS capability? With integrated radar and interaction between command system and drones? If yes, what models/technologies would this involve? What would its capabilities be and are there any technological hurdles to overcome (current capability gaps), or is the development pathway straightforward- i.e. just requires will and resources to achieve? If implemented en masse, what effect on the air war would it have?"
Apologies for correcting you, Cliff, but the Shark UAV is what's called an ISR drone. That's Intelligence-Reconnaissance-Surveillance. Its job is to find a target and stay unobserved in position to guide and observe strikes on that target. It is an expensive piece of kit and it is inconceivable it would be wasted in a kamikaze strike. FPV drones (First Person View) are the tiny cheap short-flying time drones that increasingly are being used to intercept Russia's ISR and Shahed-style drones. IAD drones will come with time but the radars required for that are very large, expensive and, above all, heavy. Fortunately, Sweden has provided Ukraine with two Saab GloabalEye AWACS aircraft that should become operational any day now, if not already (the fact that F16s are now striking Russian positions on the front line regularly hints they might be at work). They will fulfil much of what you describe.
The Ukrainian drone attacks would be like someone driving down trucks full of drones from Canada to Shreveport and launching them onto Barksdale AFB and destroying the B52s stationed there.
It's highly likely that Barksdale is just as vulnerable as the Russian bases.
Patrols and guards are going to need pump action shotguns. Bofors guns or Gepard type guns are also going to be needed in large numbers.
Densive drone swarms are going to be needed to protect bases and carrier groups.
There will come weapon systems that shoots down everything flying within range. On the battlefield this will be good for soldiers, and bad for the birds.(with birds i mean sparrows and seagouls and other.) On battlefields this have to be moving systems, to avoid artillery and other things that can take out a system standing at location.
To protect an airfield they can be at a fixed possision, but in the case of crowds of ppl in a city there will have to be other protection, since the public would go mad if you wipe out all the wildlife becuase of a concert or something.
Spot on. We just had an example of an ignorant idiot of a governor in Arizona veto a bill disallowing foreign ownership of land next/near to military bases. The leadership in the US is woefully uncreative and naive. China is actively prosecuting a gray war against the US right NOW and our politicians still act like they're dealing with a commercial competitor and not a malign actor seeking to destroy and supplant us.
In 1900 the Tank was a Gamechanger. In 2000 it was the Drone.
The topic should be taken very seriously, as it is not far off from developing and carrying out Swarm-Controlled Attacks.
Investment: Assuming an ETA of one billion and saying that one drone costs $1,000 to manufacture, with this investment, we could cover a million drones. And what does a single fifth-generation fighter jet cost? Here the relation becomes somewhat apparent.
The loading of drones can be automated and controlled via software. Each drone has an ID, which can be explicitly called out to. The loaded goods can also be automatically created in large quantities and transported to a location where loading takes place.
Tactical control: steering a swarm with the developed software is child's play with a little practice from any intelligent being. Just-in-time tactical decisions are coordinated with redundancy executed. Redundancy for ensuring success. To achieve this, the vehicles can swarm and attack from all sides, three dimensionally targeting the goal.
The topic is not yet over, much will surprise us, no question. Human imagination has no limits. But to end it all needs one thing:
No more wars!
IMO some attack is more probable by terrorists. E.g. terrorists put FPV drones on roofs of some buildings while operating them from other places. They may attack some public airports, train stations, crow gatherings (concerts), political meetings, electric substations, etc. EWs will be used by police regularly. My 2cents on shares on companies making them.
That's a good solution but the tech is moving so fast it's already out-of-date. Fully autonomous drones and loitering munitions are expected to make their debut in Ukraine very soon. They make EW jamming irrelevant unfortunately. Point defence vehicles equipped in the way Benjamin suggests are now going into production. That s an amazingly fast turnaround from concept to production. Less than two years in some cases. But they too already near-obsolete. You cannot jam fiber optic FPVs and if they swarm at grass-cutter elevations (as both Russia and Ukraine have done with them) they overwhelm kinetic defences. Maybe save your money and don't invest in EW. A better investment might be in netting manufacturers and construction companies who can build cope cages or hardened shelters.
So, every crowd gathering will have to be under nets.
Assassination by drones. Could somebody outside Ukraine or Russia stop a horde of drones today? From close vicinity? Of course you need to strike the right target at the right time, but otherwise?
Nice article, but IMHO the author is overshooting it. War and Peace are different situations. Changing the law, massive changes to civilian infrastructure, what is next? It sounds like the usual argument for permanently listing to all and each privat communication.
So what? No-one in power is regretting any of it.
"The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”"
(1984)
Yes, but we don't rule out cross-over of goals / mutual interest between the people and the rulers. I think Ukraine is a clear example of this.
I wonder if the first real attempts to counter this will involve setting up giant nets around and over whole airbases... (yes, with "gates" to allow planes to actually use these bases)
Yes. Although giant nets over an entire airbase might be a little impracticable. But protecting aircraft and installations with nets or cope cages is the best solution at the moment. It's what Ukraine and Russia are doing on vulnerable logistics routes. And if those strategic bombers had mesh cope cages around them, it would have been much harder (but not impossible) for the drones to hit their targets.
However, keeping individual aircraft inside nets or cope cages as they are being prepared for a sortie might also be impractical. :) Easier than an entire base, that's for sure.
Just build a cage big enough to accommodate fuel bowsers etc.
And leave a "gate" big enough for drones to get in easily from the side? :)
It's what the Russians will do. After all, they leave the blast doors to their munitions bunkers wide open. But, seriously, it is easy to build an isolation gate to defend against that kind of thing. However, what the Americans will do is build some kind of gold-plated system that functions worse than chain-linked fencing.
It's just that a giant net sounds like the perfect "army-style solution" for some career general in charge:
- sounds crazy, but easy to picture and explain (and to give orders to the guys used to sweeping parade grounds with crowbars);
- not needing help of any of these pesky smart engineers always coming up with "reliable" tech solutions which then fail to protect the bombers from simple quad copters;
- implementable with "simple" materials (as long as you can get THAT much of them) and a lot of free unqualified workforce (something "the army" always has more than enough of), and I guess they don't worry much about "clustering soldiers together" at that distance from the frontline;
Plus, if they end up leaving one side of the base completely open just to allow the planes to take off and land, that's still three sides less than now. Should be easier to guard if you know the drones can only get in from one direction (as long as there are no easily identifiable holes on the other sides, of course).
I guess we'll see... :)
Yeah, but there is no way to protect against every style of attack with FPVs. Think of all those B-2s parked in a line on Diego Garcia. That 30% of the US's strategic bomber force. Iran would need only a handful of Magura 5-style drone carriers towed within range to take them out. You can bet they're being built right now.
I guess the point is not that defences have to be built. But they're not doing so already.
Well, this sounds like someone at least started suspecting that there might be a problem:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-06/trump-signs-order-to-boost-drone-security-before-world-cup
“Taking action on airspace security has never been timelier” (c)
If they didn't point out otherwise, I might have thought it was said by a Sarcastosaurus...
Томе я маю до вас декілька питань, і розумію що вони не по темі але.
Скажіть будь ласка скільки має пускових установок під іскандери, якщо ви володієте такою інформацією, і яка кількість потенційно знищених, була б успіхом?
The drones used the open-source software. It was Ardupilot.
https://discuss.ardupilot.org/uploads/default/original/3X/d/b/db257a36b201e350fdd0c0adbe765ab54981d072.png
https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/failsafe-sbus-not-working/65942/8
The developers said many times that it's illegal to use it for military purposes. Both sides have used Ardupilot since at least 2023.
Well, wars are illegal, too... What are the developers going to do about it - sue SBU for copyright infringement?
I'm a bit older than teenagers, so I remember the war against global terrorism. Also, I remember the conflict between NATO and Serbia in 1999, which was the war too. So, wars aren't illegal; they are the way to resolve a dispute. Then, my opinion about the Ardupilot software. According to the today's conditions of Trump's mental health, I'm not surprised if he puts sanctions on Ukraine. Ukraine will lose updates for Ardupilot. Ukrainian developers can replace Ardupilot, but they need time, and of course, all this time, Ukraine will have additional losses in manpower and equipment.
I don't think there was a single day in documented human history when someone wasn't at war with someone else. That makes wars common, not necessarily legal. E.g. aggression is officially considered an international crime (by some, at least) nowadays, and a war isn't really possible without an aggression by at least one side. Even russia has a criminal code article that makes "waging an aggressive war" a crime. The fact that anyone with enough power and confidence ignores it or calls it something else (like a "special military operation"), doesn't make it exactly legal either, it's just that nobody of consequence cares about legality and the rest can't do anything about it.
Point is, when someone is at war, no legal matters will stop them from weaponizing anything they can get their hands on. It's just the way it is. As for Trump - sure, nobody knows what he will do next (not even himself), but I wouldn't expect him to care one bit about some open-source developer (and how much legal ties to USA do they have, anyway? I would expect open-source "dev team & community" to be international).
And we all remember Musk trying to interfere with military usage of Starlink. Of course, this was before Trump, but Ardupilot devs aren't Musks either...
You can ask him directly by the link https://x.com/chr1sa/status/1929204022587674845
"Sadly", I have neither an X account, nor a desire to create one (again). :)
No legal matter will stop them from… well there are some modifications to that. But in general agree.
What country are you talking about? ;) The United States? The place I live? Shirley you must joking hehe.
I can tell you who isn't worrying about this.
The IRGC commanders in their underground missile cities :D
Trucks, ships ... but what about buildings (or even empty areas) owned by e.g. Chinese businesses? Imagine scenario where every AFB (including those with ICBM) would attacked by hundreds or even thousands drones (stacked in those buildings or in containers on parking lots etc) ... PRCies are boasting they're making 500k FPV drones *per month* (and train operators for them) with options to raise to 700k per month if needed. Now, what/who would you say they plan to use such amount against? My opinion is they plan decapitating strike against USA, attacking simultaneously civilian and military leadership and any means of ranged projection of power - airplanes, ICBMs (would you dare to open silo if you know there are FPV swarms all around base?), moored ships and submarines, critical infrastructure etc.
There are rent by the month storage units outside the main gate of every military base in the country - why buy when you can rent storage / prepping / launching facilities. Or simply hit key transformers to roll a cascade thru the electrical network creating widespread blackouts. I'll stop there (I'm used to red teaming) - I'm simply surprised it took so long to get to this point. The writing has been on the wall for years.
Precisely. And answer is still the same - nobody really takes the threat seriously. It's the 80’ once again - nobody took terrorists (or their spinsor states’ intentions) seriously even if they kidnapped or murdered VIPs and exploded bombs. Nowadays, a hostile power wanting to reenact Day of Infamy doesn't need 6 aircraft carriers, just few ten or hundred thousands drones.
As to buying vs. renting: owned spaces for building stores of drones far from inquisitive persons’ eyes, rented spaces for actual attack.
Don't forget the Ukrainians actually rented space to build the 'mobile homes' that was next door to a FSB field office.
It seems they may already be doing surveillance based on what happens near Airforce bases in the US. We always seem to prepare for the last war, and as soon as drones became a force multiplier in Ukraine and Russia, the US stayed true to past performance, and missed an opportunity to get ahead of the situation.
Maybe this was tested already; remember the drone hoohah over bases in the States last year?
Yes. I also remember it was a panic where people who never normally look up at the night sky thought airliners, stars, and helicopters were drones.
As if anyone conducting that kind of test would fly drones with bright lights. It was so dumb.
Thanks Benjamin. I repeat a question I asked Don and Tom here, as you might be interested in exploring / discussing it: "Anti drone drones. E.g. Wild Hornets' "Shark" - right now its a FPV human piloted system, apparently AI targeting is being developed for it. My questions: Could and should it be made into an IADS capability? With integrated radar and interaction between command system and drones? If yes, what models/technologies would this involve? What would its capabilities be and are there any technological hurdles to overcome (current capability gaps), or is the development pathway straightforward- i.e. just requires will and resources to achieve? If implemented en masse, what effect on the air war would it have?"
Apologies for correcting you, Cliff, but the Shark UAV is what's called an ISR drone. That's Intelligence-Reconnaissance-Surveillance. Its job is to find a target and stay unobserved in position to guide and observe strikes on that target. It is an expensive piece of kit and it is inconceivable it would be wasted in a kamikaze strike. FPV drones (First Person View) are the tiny cheap short-flying time drones that increasingly are being used to intercept Russia's ISR and Shahed-style drones. IAD drones will come with time but the radars required for that are very large, expensive and, above all, heavy. Fortunately, Sweden has provided Ukraine with two Saab GloabalEye AWACS aircraft that should become operational any day now, if not already (the fact that F16s are now striking Russian positions on the front line regularly hints they might be at work). They will fulfil much of what you describe.
Alas, my word swapping brain! I meant Sting drone:
https://greydynamics.com/sting-ukraines-shahed-drone-hunter/
https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/ukraine-uses-sting-drones-to-shoot-down-russian-shaheds-during-mass-attacks-50517210.html#goog_rewarded
The Ukrainian drone attacks would be like someone driving down trucks full of drones from Canada to Shreveport and launching them onto Barksdale AFB and destroying the B52s stationed there.
It's highly likely that Barksdale is just as vulnerable as the Russian bases.
Patrols and guards are going to need pump action shotguns. Bofors guns or Gepard type guns are also going to be needed in large numbers.
Densive drone swarms are going to be needed to protect bases and carrier groups.
There will come weapon systems that shoots down everything flying within range. On the battlefield this will be good for soldiers, and bad for the birds.(with birds i mean sparrows and seagouls and other.) On battlefields this have to be moving systems, to avoid artillery and other things that can take out a system standing at location.
To protect an airfield they can be at a fixed possision, but in the case of crowds of ppl in a city there will have to be other protection, since the public would go mad if you wipe out all the wildlife becuase of a concert or something.