Brit firm unleashes drone-busting net cannon As the world's skies darken with drones, a British firm reckons it's come up with the ultimate solution to the UAV flying menace: the mighty SkyWall100 handheld net-firing cannon. According to OpenWorks Engineering, SkyWall is "a combination of a compressed gas powered smart launcher and an intelligent programmable projectile …
But when we say 'drone' are we talking about Reapers, as the size of that thing would suggest it is intended to target, or are we talking about a palm-sized, iPhone-controlled drone that's hovering slightly over the wall of Number 10 Downing Street trying to catch pictures of Samantha Cameron in the bath?
If you generate more than 12lbs per square inch
The muzzle on this is HUGE. There is no way in hell the puny compressed air tank attached to it can generate 12lbs per square inch (approx 1 bar) across an area with a diameter of a shoulder launched missile and more than a meter and a half in length So as far as the current regs go (and are literally interpreted) this is most likely an "airsoft"
£100 to take out a £10 drone that could assuming people are stupid cause a £100 million plane wreck. All we need is one nutter hitting a BA flight and suddenly £100 is a deal killer.
Still I do prefer the Netherlands idea of eagles in airports on patrol.
I like the idea of the cannon, perimeter mounted turrets with kill zones. Not so sure on the uniform. I can see a H&S yellow hi-vis jobs worth instead of spec ops or worse Ryan air sponsored simpletons thinking they are important.
The problem with the eagle idea is that several actual experts on bird of prey have come forward to say that it is a monumentally stupid idea and these birds are completely unsuited for this job as they become frustrated when they can't actually catch a drone every now and then. (And could go after anything else that moves.)
"Not so sure on the uniform. I can see a H&S yellow hi-vis jobs worth instead of spec ops or worse Ryan air sponsored simpletons thinking they are important."
I wonder if the cool yellow anti-flash protective glasses favoured by Health & Safety managed shooters are included or necessary?
It would most likely fall under a the definition of a prohibited firearm, under the same category as any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.
Or one of the many other prohibited categories.
100m doesn't seem a particularly useful range though :\
It may be out of date, but I think the firearms definition is pretty specific. I used to sell "boat bits" and most flare guns didn't require a firearms licence but we sold one which did, that had a percussion cap mechanism.
Then there's the gas gun laws (paint ball etc) which is specifically mentioned in the firearms definition, that has a pounds per square inch definition, I believe. Which might be why this doesn't have such a great range.
An air rifle max is 12 ft/Ib and this thing must be a lot more powerful than that to chuck that projectile for that distance. It's a chunky thing to start with, then the net comes out and becomes a low energy / high drag projectile so to get it to fly another 50 metres I would guess would need to quadruple the power. If the projectile is smart and delays opening until it is close to the target then it might go a bit further.
I can't remember what happens to single action air weapons over the poundage limit. Straight prohibited I think.
I know from the low tier (airsoft stuff) if it's over the power limit it becomes a high power air rifle (if it's single action) or a section 5 firearm if it's automatic.
Re the ball launcher thing, that's different as I believe there are exceptions for certain types of projectile (and more than likely a power limit though I'm not certain on that one).
The same applies to the flare gun, it doesn't have to be explosive powered to qualify as a firearm (see the previous Airsoft example). I think it's probably the fact it uses percussion caps (which would be ammunition) which require the license, which is why it's different to the others.
IANAL...
"... single action air weapons over the poundage limit."
If I remember, they needed a firearms license and were only intended for people who killed 'vermin' in a professional capacity. The law may have changed since I Iast had an air rifle.
The thing about the energy limit (13 ft.lb as I remember) was that it was formulated according to how much range/damage-potential it could give to an air gun pellet. This thing would/should have totally different considerations as to how much damage it could cause if misused.
12 foot-pounds for rifles, 6 for pistols, and apocryphally, that restriction was brought in to protect our existing airgun manufacturers from the effects of all those people wanting to import better and more powerful/efficient German-made ones, back in the early to mid eighteen hundreds.
(He says, unable to actually confirm that through google at the time of writing...)
"It would most likely fall under a the definition of a prohibited firearm, under the same category as any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing."
Eh, no more so than one of these.
One presumes these will not be mail-order and the company will sell it along with training to genuine buyers, in which case the Police would be unlikely to take too great an interest.
The parachute seems like it would just add to the risk of the entrapped drone floating with the wind - potentially across the runway and towards aircraft awaiting clearance to go (with their engines spinning). On a windy airfield, there seems to be a lot of scope for it to drift some way from it's actual snaring point.
Surely better to dispense with the 'chute and let it fall out of the sky like a brick - presumably the owner isn't getting it back so it's final "landed" condition is not relevant?
It's generally frowned upon to design something that'll make something drop out of the sky like a brick, possible overhead of people. If this thing is used at an airfield traffic will have been shut down and/or diverted. If it's THAT close to a waiting aircraft there is a good chance it wouldn't be used in the first place as a miss would then lead to a net and projectile flying into said aircraft.
Even with the chute the drone drops fairly rapidly so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
100m of range seems rather irrelevant to me. Who gives a crap about drones at 100m until they are practically over a runway? It is those 500-2000ft ones that really need to be shot down. Police marksman in a helicopter time? Or a really big drone capable of carrying this thing?
I can see the police wanting to use this to bag a perp on the ground though...
"I can see the police wanting to use this to bag a perp on the ground though..."
Our oriental cousins already have something very similar for person entrapment purposes. I can't remember how I came to be watching videos of them on The Tube Of You, but they do exist and look remarkable effective in a slightly comedic way.
A potential solution:
- small-engine (internal combustion) reduced scale V(S)TOL-type aircraft (think V-22 Osprey);
- cargo bay full of capsules containing something resembling the net of a minesweeper;
- capsules from biodegradable cardboard/etc material (in case it gets sucked by jet engine);
- flies fast to the target in aircraft mode, operator can be in touch with ATC to avoid causing the same type of problem as the offender;
- slows down a bit for intercept, tilting the rotors a bit;
- snags the target;
- operators goes lower and to a place safe to drop the target and disengages the net for collection by ground personnel
Rinse and repeat
Potential problem:
If the drone is actively controlled, it may be able to see an attack craft coming and move to evade (or worse, counterattack). It's more difficult to see a ground-based gun targeting it from a controller's vantage point.
Attacking the drone is the wrong way to go about it.
The operator is transmitting an easily sourced signal, that could be targeted with conventional weaponry, such as Napalm.
My preferred method is a tiger fitted with an Oculus headset, which would guide her by showing the target clubbing her cub to death.
Unless it's acting on a program, meaning it's NOT actively controlled...
And before you say, "Then it can be predicted," the program COULD be using random numbers or can react to sensors, meaning it's acting pseudo-smart and will therefore act like it's being directed when it's reacting on its own.
Combat drones!!!
Well, not exactly combat, but rather interceptor drones, high speed remote controlled airplane hybrids.
The interceptor would fly at high speed as a plane to the target and then release a net above the delinquent drone whilst simultaneously rotating its propellers to helicopter mode, whereby it can safely control the decent of both itself and the entangled drone to Earth.
It could even operate under command, and let the on-board gubbins do the intercepting automatically.
As it is only intended to be deployed for a matter of minutes, power considerations are minimal, and a quick swap out of batteries or refill of gas would see it operational again.
Mmm, I'm thinking, pigeon pie could feed the world.
If it isn't already required, you're going to quickly find out that this needs to be licensed, when idjits start firing them into neighbor's yards, or using them to ensnare cats or birds.
I guess it makes sense if you have a drone hovering near a runway, and you send a guy out onto the tarmac to bring the drone down.
(How does it work against black helicopters?)
Rolls Royce had a probeml firing frozen chickens at their new turbofan and called in a turbofan expert to solve the problem. after spending millions and selling the car department to the Germans to help their cash flow and annoy Jeremy Clarckson, they came up with the idea of using metal fan blades in their stirrer.
How the fscusck does an engine capable of engulfing 40 thousand pounds of ice filled cloud, birds included, need protection from a plastic toy by a shop assistant in ex army fatigues some thirty years later?
How the fscusck does an engine capable of engulfing 40 thousand pounds of ice filled cloud, birds included,
Because ice-filled cloud comes with its ice pre-chopped, or rather in hail stones that still need to grow to a point where one might think of them needing to be chopped on entering a turbine engine. And birds, while certainly capable of damaging an engine, rarely contain metallic bits that are even more capable of damaging an engine.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
