British Army develops AI shotgun drone with machine vision for indoor use The British Army has reportedly developed AI-equipped killer drones armed with twin-linked shotguns designed for blasting enemies of the Queen hiding inside buildings. As if that wasn't terrifying enough, the Army is already looking at strapping a chain gun or rocket launcher to its i9 drone instead of the shotguns, according …
A couple of ounces of something whoompy built into the drone might be just as effective at disabling malcontents.
If you really want to hurt them, wrap it in a few more ounces of ball-bearings.
K.I.S.S.
Or be like the Americans, and just bomb the entire neighbourhood into dust.
A couple of ounces of something whoompy built into the drone might be just as effective at disabling malcontents..............................
Angel Has Fallen - the film uses this scenario to incapacitate Secret Service Agents protecting the President, of course, this is Hollywood, so they worked sleek and fleek
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6189022/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbGxYoxpPdI
Bayerische Oberlandbahn?
I haven't seen The Black Hole for years. In fact, I think I have only seen it all the way through once, and that was in the early 2000s. I remember watching clips from it on Screen Test as a kid and wanting to watch it, but we never got to see it in the cinema when it came round.
Some professor will happly upload a new AI based on labaratory cats to the thing?
On top of cats by nature diverting themselves with torture and murder, we have those lab-cats also pissed about electrodes in their brains, no shagging and no fighting over shagging!
You might want to avoid damaging the building.
You might have multiple targets.
You might want to confirm the hit.
You might just think it's really bad-ass.
You might think that pepper-spray or taser or "really really loud siren" might be more appropriate as drone-based weapons though. You could surely bodge that onto a consumer drone quite easily... an upgrade for the Amazon drones maybe?
This is all about not putting any more human beings into danger unnecessarily, so long as they are behind the drone. We don't really give a flying fuck if they are in front of the damn thing.
There, FTFY
Like I said elsewhere in this forum:
Breonna Taylor, V1.1
Yeah, because as everybody knows the British Military is looking to get into busting civilians for drugs. It's just like that. How could I have ever missed it.
On the other hand, if this things serves a warrant in the middle of the night and the moron in the house starts shooting, the cop back at headquarters won't have to shoot back to defend himself after getting hit in the leg, nor will his compadres have to provide covering fire ... Maybe it IS a good thing for civilian use.
Putting aside the obvious comparisons with Terminator et al, anyone remember the new years eve 2019 celebrations? While the rest of the world was firing off rockets & squibs (gunpowder - invented by the Chinese) In Beijing they had thousands of drones flying in formation, doing all sorts of stunts - murmurations of DJIs. If they can control that many for a one off show, imagine what the battlefield will be like when the next Big One kicks off.
Meanwhile the MOD is requesting all kit should have an RFI tag to aid logistics...Like you said, What could possibly go wrong? go wrong? go wrong? go wrong? go wrong?
The battlefield will sound like a billion invading hornets, striking fear into the very hearts of the enemy ... until the enemy switches on the electronic countermeasures and turns it up to 100,000W of transmit power. Then the silence will be deafening ... followed by the sound of $BIGNUM of drones hitting the ground.
"dynamically compensate for recoil by setting its rotors to full forward power at the same time as a shot is fired."
The recoil from a shot gun is all over in less than a tenth of a second. It's likely to take rather more than that time for speeding up the rotors to take effect on the mass of a shotgun-bearing drone, so they'll have to spin up quite a bit ahead of the trigger being pulled. This will cause the drone to lurch towards the "subject" before firing, both providing early warning and spoiling the aim. That's the theory, but let's wait and see.
However, the idea as a whole seems somewhat top heavy. As an engineer I've always considered that the technological arms race has missed a point: the cost of a kill is getting disproportionate.
How about having the shotguns mounted below the centre of gravity so that when fired, the drone utilizes the recoil force to rotate about its CG. In effect, firing the shotgun induces a quick forward flip of the drone, allowing time for the rotors to compensate and absorb/dissipate the force.
Agree using the rotors would be a challenge, it seems more likely they use a recoilless mechanism.
Surely the cost of a kill is much cheaper than the political cost of a death of our serviceman? That has been the trajectory of weapons for a while. Something most people will support, we just need to make sure its not so easy that the Pentagon etc toss a few drones into civilians for good measure
I'm pretty sure a dead Drone at ~ $1 million loses less votes than a military funeral.
Next drones with Tasers for law enforcement and ones with a safety tent /breathing apparatus for fire rescue.
These are twin-linked guns. That implies two, with shared firing. It's possible therefore that they fire in opposite directions simultaneously, cancelling out each other's recoil.
Of course that means being very sure that there is nobody standing in the opposite direction to the target ...
There are designs for rifles that allow a huge reduction in recoil AKA the ReCoilLess rifle. Looks like it involves ejecting gasses to the rear or something. Besides it doesn't matter if this drone gets thrown back and damages itself, I'm guessing that once it fires it's primary mission is complete, send in another one.
Please don't tell Boris about this though. The British Army is there to defend from external threats and not some Covidiots that fail to social distance when a little tipsy.Hardly 'blasting enemies of the Queen' lol
"Besides it doesn't matter if this drone gets thrown back and damages itself, I'm guessing that once it fires it's primary mission is complete, send in another one."
This was my first thought, in the same way that everything is air-droppable at least once. Complications mostly only arise when you want to carry the same action out multiple times. I suppose they want some kind of discriminating targeting for hostage situations and the like, otherwise it would be a lot simpler to just duck tape a grenade to the thing.
grrrrrrrr,
You may have answered your own question .......* fly through * !!!
Guessing:
One metre wide, twin shotguns with recoil suppresion + Ammo.
Likely lightly amoured so it cannot be shot out of the air too easily (also protects the AI etc).
Powerful engines to support all that weight
Just go straight through the door or window ...... at speed ..... Bang Bang ....... oops Sorry Vicar ..... mumble mumble ... we will try next door :) ;) !!!
Under the Disability act all doors have to be large enough for 3 wheelchair users to enter abreast, so as long as it's a modern building...
But if we're talking warehouses or industrial buildings it's a lesser issue. Although how it copes with internal doors... I assume troops follow it in maybe?
Surely it would be cheaper to send in a swarm of distraction drones to keep the occupants occupied whilst the forces of goodness (depends where you’re sitting, obviously) enter and detain the miscreants.
All this extrajudicial murder with collateral murders by drone have become far too commonplace.
ED-209:
Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Jones:
I think you'd better do what he says, Mr. Kinney.
ED-209:
You now have 15 seconds to comply. You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
ED-209:
You have 5 seconds to comply. 4. 3. 2. 1. I am now authorized to use physical force!
The only reasons to use dense shot are for either penetration (think thick masses of feathers as in duck) or long range (denser shot has more ballistic carry). (Could be both too). Indoors range is unlikely to be a significant issue and penetration could be achieved with a less dense flechette. If precision is required then a low spread and swift deceleration would be useful. Other round possibilities which are low velocity and more explosive would include a heat round or a hesh round both of which are commercially available already. If one accepts the use of CS gas in Vietnam which the USA justified as it was a "police action", not a war then various combinations of lethal or disabling gases are available, Novichok anyone?
Good question. Long enough for the one who planted or administered it to be back in Mosc..... a long way away. Could have uses, with a predictable reaction time, before which nothing happens, then a violent incapacitating reaction. And invisible presumably scentless - nobody knew it had been ingested.
This was the concept behind the killer drones in Kill Decision (Daniel Suarez). Cheap, disposable drones that had just a few shots and then were replaced by the next wave of drones. Send out thousands of drones with 1 - 2 shots, you don't have to worry about jams etc. just let the next one take over.
"something that either dynamically absorbs the energy of recoil (i.e. a big spring)"
I used to fix tanks for a living and we used fairly sophisticated hydro-pneumatic systems to absorb recoil and then return the armament to the fully run out position. I don't think a spring would cut it for a chain gun somehow...
Oh I dunno - thing fires and the target takes the hit. The drone shoots backwards, springs mounted on the back hit the wall and suddenly the target gets a secondary hit of a face-full of drone as well.
Of course I've now got the alternative mental image of a drone bouncing around inside the room like a rubber ball, which is going to take a while to remove with brain bleach...
RPGs are nearly recoiless so could work quite well on alight drone.
Small rockets would also maybe work better than a firearm.
I guess unless the shotgun is mounted exactly along the centre of balance it'll twist the drone in one direction or another.
If it's mounted in pairs they would be fired together to counter the twist.
As long as the drone is push straight back maybe the recail isn't such a problem anyway. With a light load, (it's indoor at short range, 24g #9 shot) it would be enough to debilitate the target without massive recoil
This thing is going to sound like a swarm of bees turned up to 11 in flight. You're not going to be able to sneak up on any terrorists inside of a building with this, nor hide the nature of the drone. They're going to know exactly where and what this thing is.
You know what I'd do? Hide behind a fire door (probably one of the more shotgun-proof things in a building), wait for the thing to come through the doorway, slam the door into it and then grab the barrel and point it upwards. The drone is now at my mercy, and now I have a shotgun. This thing is not battle-ready in the slightest, and I have a hard time thinking how they could make a flying drone in an enclosed space sufficiently resilient.
> You're not going to be able to sneak up on any terrorists
That's IMHO not the point anyway: It will eventually end up used by police forces about to enter potentially hostile buildings, and its noise and reputation are its most important features. They spell: "Last chance to surrender before a heartless terminator drone blows your face off".
After all, a 1m large drone drone will never be able to enter 99% of the existing buildings (only luxurious palaces and corporate headquarters), and even if it manages to squeeze in through a door, it won't be able to maneuver inside a corridor easily enough to counter threats that don't come from straight forward. At its current configuration it's a deterrent, not a weapon: "Eat your soup or I send in the shotgun drones".
A deterrent is only effective if it is plausible. As threats go, "Come out or I send in the drone" isn't very effective if the drone can't effectively target you from outside the building, can't enter the building, or can't meaningfully engage an enemy if it does manage to get in. Something that couldn't take a hit in a pillow fight is not going to be taken seriously.
In contrast, some of the tracked robots you see used are a much more effective deterrent. They're much sturdier, so can take some damage. Because they're not limited in their weight in the same way they can afford to be stronger in their actuation (you would have more difficulty grabbing the gun and trying to push it out the way than with a drone) and can carry more armaments. They would only make a noise when moving, so can afford to sit and wait for an awful lot longer. They can also use the ground as anchorage / leverage, unlike a drone.
> Wouldn't a drone mounted .22 have better penetration?
Not if the target is wearing some ballistic armor (most soldiers do), so there is no perfect solution. The point of using a shotgun (a short-barreled one) is the scattering of the pellets which makes aiming unnecessary: An AI-driven drone will have problems determining the exact shape of the target to aim at something vital (as for the human controller, he only knows what the drone tells him, so don't expect any additional insight).
It's so much easier to just fire in the general direction of the target(s) and expect some damage to be done. That's the very point of sawed-off shotguns.
(Last but not least, most targets will be swatted civilians obliviously watching TV or eating dinner when the drone breaks through their veranda window, so no leather jackets or motorcycle helmets.)
You are not even wrong, Jan 0.
Punt gun muzzle velocity was usually lower than that of a modern shotgun (blackpowder and poor wadding were the major factors). However, they were typically loaded with the very same #4 buck that I used in the above example. Lower velocity means lower energy on target equals less penetration. Punt guns were not devastating because of power, they were devastating because of sheer volume of shot, typically firing a pound of shot (~2160 pellets) per load ... and sometimes five or more hunters would fire into a flock simultaneously.
I have taken many duck, from all angles. The direction the ducks are flying makes absolutely no difference to penetration.
I have rarely shot a duck "in the back" .... a duck's back is on top when they are flying, and I am on the ground. Can't hit what I can't see. Not that it makes any difference to me, or the duck. Why would you think otherwise? Anthropomorphizing? Do you think food somehow magically materializes wrapped in plastic in the back room at Tesco/Safeway?
> You either need a huge shotgun (a "puntgun")
Where does that come from? Duck hunting is a pretty common sport, and punt guns have gone extinct since about a century now. I'm surprised you even know about them. As Jake said, they were the (clumsy) solution to technological limits of the 19th century.
Common ducks are definitely not armored, and hunting shotshells are sold with different sizes of shot inside, from tiny birdshot (you guessed it, for small birds) to much bigger buckshot (yes). You pick the one fitting the game you're hunting; If you use buckshot against birds you'll have to search a while to find some meat shreds, if you use birdshot against a buck you'll just annoy it.
"Wouldn't a drone mounted .22 have better penetration?"
Sure, but that's not the whole story.
#4 buckshot, with a diameter of 0.24", has a velocity of around 1300fps (mild 12 gauge loads), vs. a .22 at around 1200fps. The .22 weighs in at around 40gr, the #4 buck at 20.6gr. Doing the math, the .22 has around 40% more energy on target (at short distances) ... combine that with stability in flight and projectile shape, and the .22 has the edge.
However, given a single shot there are a lot more chances of hitting the target multiple times with the shotgun.The shotgun fires around 27 projectiles, all hitting an area under 1 foot in diameter (depending on choke and possibly with a few fliers). And even with it's much lower energy, it's still powerful enough for each pellet to do major organ damage. There is a reason they call it buckshot ... it's not for hunting mice!
Note: I'm assuming typical "home defense" distances in the above, which seems reasonable given the topic under discussion. Likewise the #4x27 shot, which is a good all 'round load for this kind of thing.
Rather than shotguns with all that recoil, fit a harpoon.
Then you can use tension on the line to offset recoil and choose whether to release the line or use it to give the target a face full of drone - in which case you can also discharge any remaining power from the battery to absolutely be sure someone's going to have a bad day.
Picture this (admittedly unlikely, given our corporate media) scenario: you're a journalist investigating a corrupt government scheme. An agent comes to your house and is granted access. Eventually you realise they're an agent and ask them to leave. On their way out, they phone in one of these 'indoor drones'. If you get killed, the media will say you were a terrorist. If you manage to destroy the machine, you'll get done for (terrorist) destruction of government property.
Using drones to control/kill humans is a bad idea. Putting aside the inherently cowardly nature of drone attacks, the seemingly inevitable 'collateral damage' just foments resentment (see Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.). Why can't the PTB see that this goes directly against their stated interests?
It's easy to laugh at conspiracy theories but, given the utter stupidity of the Executive, it's no wonder they crop up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
