The Register Home Page

back to article US Marines' latest anti-drone toy is an AI turret that uses regular machine guns

The US military is adding autonomous gun-based counter-drone systems intended to reduce its reliance on expensive interceptor missiles. Defense robotics firm Allen Control Systems (ACS) announced a deal with the US Marine Corps on Monday to get its Bullfrog autonomous weapon system attached to the Light Marine Air Defense …

  1. DS999 Silver badge

    So its back to WW II technology

    Big machine guns shooting hot lead at incoming targets. Only difference is that this will be computer controlled instead of manned by a private who may be only a few months out of basic.

    I wonder how much damage all the bullets don't hit will do to whatever is off in the distance when they return to earth? Not that anti drone missiles don't have the same problem, but there will be a LOT more bullets creating a lot more total damage even if each bullet damages a tiny fraction of what a missile miss does. Hope those overseas bases have several miles of exclusion zone around them. If they don't they will effectively have it once people who live there are forced to move out or risk one of those bullets ripping through them while they sleep.

    1. You aint sin me, roit Silver badge

      Re: So its back to WW II technology

      Could be firing depleted uranium rounds...

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        Seems unnecessary for knocking down drones. Depleted uranium is for armored targets like tanks - that's why the A-10 uses them because one of its major roles is battlefield support to take out enemy tanks.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So its back to WW II technology

          Doesn't it use anti-tank missiles to take out enemy tanks?

          The gun is there to correct the centre of gravity and for advertising.

    2. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: So its back to WW II technology

      Generally speaking, the best way to minimize collateral damage is not to start stupid wars in the first place.

      1. Flak
        Stop

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        But that does not sell equipment!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        I'm sure Putin is listening to you.

      3. not.known@this.address

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        Whilst not starting stupid wars is one way to reduce violence, it fails to take into account that, while people in the UK are content to whine and moan and then let people carry on shafting us, some people resist and things escalate from there.

        It's all very well speaking softly while carrying a big stick, but sometimes you do need to use the stick. It's not a "stupid war" if the other side has something you need and the only way to get is to take it by force. Or if the other side wants to take something you have, and won't take no for an answer.

    3. JLV Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: So its back to WW II technology

      > a few months out of basic

      You’re being generous here.

      anti drone defense, Russian Benny Hill version

    4. Ken G Silver badge

      WW1 technology, the Ukrainians have had success with Maxim guns

      The danger to everyone around tha you describe is the same whether it's artificial intelligence or natural stupidity pulling the trigger.

      1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        Re: WW1 technology, the Ukrainians have had success with Maxim guns

        It may actually be less harmful. I would expect an automated gun mount to be more accurate (if it's not, why bother?) and probably fire shorter bursts for a kill, reducing the amount of flying metal.

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: WW1 technology, the Ukrainians have had success with Maxim guns

          if it's not, why bother?

          If you can sell it as having "AI" and talk about all the cost savings from not having to train people to operate it, or deal with those who are injured/killed because they're vulnerable when they're operating it, it may not matter if it requires 2x the ammo per target. Ammo is cheap, training and injured/dead soldiers are not. The added collateral damage from those extra misses, well that's somebody else's problem - certainly not the problem of the defense contractor who sold it or the lobbyists/generals/congressmen who used taxpayer dollars to buy it.

          Yeah you'd hope it would be more accurate, but I don't think it would matter for the reasons above.

    5. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

      Re: So its back to WW II technology

      The recent rather spectacular explosion of an oil tank in Russia that propelled the tank roof into the air was actually caused by a Russian missile that missed its target; more generally, there is lots of social media footage from Russia showing air defence (guns) blazing away, missing their target, and hitting various buildings beyond.

      So yes, exactly this - every bullet has its billet.

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        The UK's Civil Nuclear Constabulary who protect such places as Sellafield nuclear establishment and are armed, are trained to look at the background before shooting anyone to see what might be damaged if they miss.

        I believe that the euphemism "collateral damage" is the standard way of describing allegedly unintended deaths, destruction and general bad things happening that are not the actual target of munitions in warfare, like the killing of all those schoolgirls in Iran on the first day of attacks by the USA and Israel armed forces. (That and "friendly fire" for when people accidentally attack their own troops.)

        1. Rich 11

          Re: So its back to WW II technology

          and general bad things happening that are not the actual target of munitions in warfare

          The building those schoolgirls were in was the target that multiple missiles were aimed at. The Yanks hadn't bothered updating their intelligence for years and thought the building was still being used by the Revolutionary Guard Navy Corps, and hadn't noticed that it had been converted to a school ten years previously. But no doubt it was the Iranians' fault for not letting Google run their StreetView vehicles throughout the city.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: So its back to WW II technology

            Didn't they blow up the Chinese embassy in the Serbia/Bosnia 'adventure' for the same reason ?

            1. The Organ Grinder's Monkey Bronze badge

              Re: So its back to WW II technology

              Ref Bosnia, the news story at the time said that they were choosing their targets from the CIA's world book of facts. Possibly an out of date edition, can't remember.

          2. druck Silver badge

            Re: So its back to WW II technology

            Whether or not the Yanks had updated their intelligence, Palantir's AI decided it was target.

    6. Andrew Barr

      Re: So its back to WW II technology

      Surely as Its AI and AI is perfect, it will be one shot kills every time!! Ah wait, we get that warning at the bottom of every AI chat - results maybe inaccurate.

      So its just going to fire a tonne of lead in the general direction and hope for the best!!

      1. Rich 11

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        The AI has probably been trained on the actions of millions of CounterStrike players.

        To quote Wikipedia on the game, "Uncooperative actions, such as killing teammates, result in a penalty", so that's all right then.

    7. phuzz Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: So its back to WW II technology

      It's older than WW2 technology; the M2 machine gun was designed before WW2, and some of the guns still in service were manufactured then. (Here is one in US service that was manufactured in 1933). The Browning 50 cal was just so well designed and built, that it's not worth replacing with a modern firearm.

      Personally I quite enjoy that modern technology like an autonomous anti-drone turret, will be using a gun designed the 1930s,and possibly even built then too.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So its back to WW II technology

        I'd amend that to say that it was just well enough designed and so many were manufactured that it's not worth replacing with a modern firearm.

        It's heavy and complex to set up, prone to misfire but buying an old or reconditioned one (or taking it out of storage) from the tens of thousands made in the '40's is much cheaper than a slightly lighter modern equivalent. Since they're mostly vehicle mounted the weight isn't a big issue and the headspace setup doesn't happen so often if you're not fighting a war with them.

  2. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Terminator

    The Terminator ...

    ... was not a documentary. For one thing, time travel doesn't exist.

    1. just4this Bronze badge

      Then why is The Reg reporting on judgment day and skynet?

      https://www.theregister.com/public-sector/2026/07/21/judgment-day-looms-for-uks-835b-skynet-military-satellite-comms-upgrade/5275060

      1. Philo T Farnsworth Silver badge

        Remember, the bots don't need to achieve sentience to kill everyone.

        It's a feature, not a bug.

    2. Christoph

      Re: The Terminator ...

      Not so much Terminator as Manshonyagger.

    3. DS999 Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: The Terminator ...

      time travel doesn't exist

      Not yet, but once it does it will always have been!

  3. BoHu
    Windows

    Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

    Not bad but 800m range (horizontal?) is not really super for anti-drone purposes, as shown by Russia's Shaheds that they just flew slightly higher (last year) to escape gunfire [ https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/why-russias-drone-swarms-are-getting-deadlier-by-flying-higher-9305 ].

    It's between those very low-cost machine-gun oriented approaches and the very expensive anti-missile missiles that there's a huge gap (and sweet spot) to be filled with inexpensive yet effective anti-drone weaponry istm. Which is where Ukraine's rather ingenious anti-drone drones come in [ https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/ukraines-anti-drone-tech-high-demand-iran-attacks-neighbors-rcna263113 ].

    We're lucky to have Ukrainians as allies as we also alliedly support them in their valliant efforts to retain their sovereignty from rectum Putin's horrific butchery of an inept and cowardly attempt at invading his neighbors, especially after the senslessly evil mad dog kidnapping of their children and brainwashing them into thinking they are good little soviet robots, imho.

    Down with Putin and his cronies! Glory to Ukraine!

    1. JLV Silver badge

      Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

      Don’t conflate all the defensive systems. This family - not necessarily this AI implementation - is a point defense weapon akin to what a Phalanx does for ships.

      It can do fine with a 200m range, if the drone is heading for it (standard defensive equipment for infantry in UA now includes shotguns though I wonder how effective they are, esp at night). The nifty little UA antidrone drones don’t defend their launchers they defend passage corridors, so they need more range. A certain fail rate is more easily absorbed than with a military defender getting swarmed in the open: people can shelter. And they don’t have a choice, think The Blitz.

      “Cheap machine gun solutions” sound sweet IF they are reliable enough for point defense. A German Gepard - 35mm - wasn’t cheap when it was built.

      I’m curious what UA will cook up in the ABM space. Re. Israeli defense against Iran I recall an expert stating that the interceptor is always more expensive. And yes 3M$ Patriots do seem to confirm that. But is that necessarily the case? Think about it: a ballistic missile needs to be big enough to fly 500-1000+ km with a heavy payload. That’s not small or cheap. Meanwhile an interceptor missile defending a high value location could theoretically fly up 2km, hit an insufficiently-evasive IRBM and do its job by destroying its explosives and fuses. Shorter range => could be a lot smaller and cheaper. Maybe. From the folk who cooked up $2k interceptor drones, who knows?

      1. lglethal Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

        On the topic of the interceptor being more expensive, I think you will find it has zero to do with the rocket itself, which is effectively an aluminium cylinder filled with propellant, nor with the explosive warhead, none of which are that expensive. And yes, because of the smaller size and distance to travel, are likely to be cheaper than the equivalent Ballistic Missile parts.

        The extra cost is ALL to do with the ability to make it maneuverable. The interceptor has to launch and then zero in on its target. The Ballistic Missile in comparison, just launches, does perhaps one adjustment to line up with it's target and then off it goes. The Interceptor has to align to its target very accurately, a target that is likely moving at supersonic speeds, which requires a lot of very small, very quick feedback adjustments. That is not cheap, nor easy, to develop or build. That's entirely where the cost is.

        1. JLV Silver badge

          Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

          It’s quite possible, aye likely, you’re right.

          But let’s separate two types of costs: brawn/physical and brain/smarts. The first is hard to compress and applies to the IRBM’s bulk. The interceptor is going to have to put up with hard physics and control surfaces to maneuver. That’s also hard to trim down.

          But digital smarts of the kind to calculate interception vectors? Those costs are coming down, quickly and this war is accelerating R&D and innovation, like all high intensity wars tend to. So, watch that space.

          1. phuzz Silver badge

            Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

            It's not just the missiles, the interceptor also needs (probably multiple) radar units that can detect a ballistic missile, distinguish it from everything else it can detect, and plot it's course quickly enough to send an interceptor missile at it.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

              It's not just the missiles, the interceptor also needs (probably multiple) radar units..

              .. and unless they're passive, runs the risk of the radars being detected by decoys and electronic warfare drones mixed in with a swam, and then the interception battery being destroyed.

      2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

        The nifty little UA antidrone drones don’t defend their launchers they defend passage corridors, so they need more range.

        They need all the physics, range, speed, endurance, payload. The more corridor they're expected to patrol, the harder that becomes. Both sides have been using loitering drones that park up to conserve battery and wait for targets. If they're flying, they drain the batteries. Bigger the drone, faster the drain.

        I’m curious what UA will cook up in the ABM space.

        Probably very little given much UA tech is actually Western tech, and Russia has been actively hunting actual & potential drone and missile assembly facilities. And with Ukraine being out of interceptors, that situation is getting worse.

        Think about it: a ballistic missile needs to be big enough to fly 500-1000+ km with a heavy payload. That’s not small or cheap. Meanwhile an interceptor missile defending a high value location could theoretically fly up 2km, hit an insufficiently-evasive IRBM and do its job by destroying its explosives and fuses. Shorter range => could be a lot smaller and cheaper.

        Ballistic missiles don't have to be that large or have that long a range, ie they just have to outrange the defenders ability to strike launchers on the ground. So systems like 300mm Tornado-S have a range of 1-200km and fly faster than this gun can engage. So do the Geran-4 jet variants. Quadcopter-style drones can't really fly fast enough to intercept those either. Then it's a gamble that IRBMs could be destroyed by small missiles given they're essentially armored by their fragmenting casings, and fuzing might be top & tail. Might hit a fuze in the nose, probably won't penetrate through to the tail. They might damage guidance systems, but if it's a ballistic missile, it'll follow a ballistic path and land somewhere near the intended target anyway.

        It's a rather wicked problem.

        So I think best use of systems like this is protecting forward bases or convoy escorts, so rather like Russia's Pantsir or own version of this system with aim-assist on trucks to deal with Ukraine's small drones. Or just use it as an anti-infantry system to automagically defend sectors against DRG infiltrators. Shades of Skynet, but lots of money to be made.

        1. Casca Silver badge

          Re: Mind that big gaping hole in the middle

          And always on the russian side when posting...

          What does the russians have on you? Did you marry one?

  4. spold

    Next...

    The Echo Papa 607 with the French Taunter.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Next...

      Jetez la vache!

  5. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    it's cheaper to build a system that can adapt existing military firearms

    Also avoids the problem of all the existing companies that make the M1 -> M_Infinity calling up their congressperson to get your platform defunded

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: it's cheaper to build a system that can adapt existing military firearms

      The mechanical part of that was done more than 30 years ago. My engineer brother headed a team that designed and built one in 1996 for the USDoD. Their version was joystick controlled. The operator simply had to click on targets, and the computer would plot the most efficent path for the gun barrel to travel to hit each target. I don't think it was capable of more than 5 active targets at any one time, but this was in the late 1990s.

      While he enjoyed the engineering challenges, he especially enjoyed stress testing M-16s and his designs to destruction at a army firing range.

  6. JLV Silver badge

    I wonder how much "AI" the anti-air capability is really bringing to the table. This type of weapon has not been aimed by human gunners for a long time, it's all radars and targeting systems that automatically control the aiming of the gun. You're not going to be asking Claude to add 2+2 and getting 5 here, or rewriting Confederacy of Dunces in leet speak, marketing droids aside.

    What's certainly innovative is retrofitting kits to existing guns. And, yes, I am sure AI - but of a distinctly different kind than your friendly neighborhood agentic LLMs - can be helpful to identify small drones and prioritize targets in drone swarms. But military hardware has been getting pretty smart for a while now and this seems like a firmly human-in-the-loop use.

    "Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War" and "Project Maven: A Marine Colonel, His Team, and the Dawn of AI Warfare" are pretty good background reading, though Ukraine is probably fielding some cutting edge stuff too, as the battlefield there is so saturated with electronic warfare countermeasures. Army of None is clear about something: a lot of "AI" involves a human designating a target or kill zone and letting the weapon loose on it, so the notion of "autonomy" here is not as simple as one might assume.

    1. Filippo Silver badge

      There's also the problem that when a press release says "this uses AI", you can't really trust it. There's still significant pressure in some circles to be able to claim you're "using AI", to the point where any algorithm with more than three branches or so can be called "AI" if you're desperate enough.

      1. AtomicDog

        This clearly won't be anything to do with LLMs, it'll be trained computer vision models and a learning model for the weapon type and conditions etc, surely?

  7. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Mushroom

    SWAT

    Wait until local law enforcement get their hands on these, as they already do with certain kinds of (military) weapons and vehicles.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does it also handle crowd control?

    And who will change the barrel when the human wave keeps coming?

  9. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Mushroom

    an airspeed of less than 250 knots

    $ENEMY cunningly increases their airspeed to 255 knots...

    1. Korev Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: an airspeed of less than 250 knots

      That's knot fair

    2. IamAProton Bronze badge

      Re: an airspeed of less than 250 knots

      I guess the version equipped with the m134 can do the job at the cost of spraying a bit more bullets

  10. joeldillon

    'the fully autonomous targeting and killing of humans with complete autonomy.' is, err, just a tad tautologous I think...

    1. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Not at all.

      It simply points out that the autonomous gun only fires, by its own choice, at humans who have their own complete autonomy.

      That is, in order to reduce incidents of friendly fire, it refuses to target anyone it perceives as acting under orders. This is an AI safeguard to protect the Marines deploying the weapons. There may be side effects to this guardrail, but the manufacturers have a no-sue clause.

  11. prh99

    So CIWS phallanxesque system with AI for drones.

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

  13. Luiz Abdala Silver badge
    Pint

    I wonder if they would make a mount for the AM 180 for the smaller targets...

    Imagine a machine gun spewing .22LR bullets from a pizza-plate shaped drum for the really tiny drones. It's all about scale, on both directions.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon