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 …

[Anomalous Cowturd]

What could possibly go wrong?

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.

[IceC0ld]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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

[Someone Else]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

Which is, of course, where the MoD got the idea in the fist place.

"I saw it wit me own eyes, Guv'nuh, so I know it wuhks!"

[big_D]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

Shotgun mounted drones sound more Daniel Suarez than Angel has Fallen. This has a lot of parallels to Kill Decision, now, just tell me they haven't used weaver ant swarm intelligence.

[Ken 16]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

I'm imagining B.O.B from Disney's The Black Hole

[big_D]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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.

[fajensen]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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!

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

a new AI based on labaratory cats to the thing?

And call it "A game of rat and dragon"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_Rat_and_Dragon

(I remember reading that many, many years ago..)

[JDX]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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?

[Toni the terrible]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

You might also want your troopers not to be wasted

[Muscleguy]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

This is all about the bravery of being out of range.

[jake]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

Muscleguy writes: "This is all about the bravery of being out of range."

That is one of the single most idiotic things I've ever read here on ElReg.

This is all about not putting any more human beings into danger unnecessarily.

[Someone Else]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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

[jake]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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.

[Qumefox]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

first the good guys start fighting using drones.. then the bad guys start fighting using drones. It'll get to the point where the only actual casualties in conflicts will be just be innocent bystanders.

[Amused Bystander]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

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?

[jake]

Re: What could possibly 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.

[Mike 137]

Timing will be critical

"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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Timing will be critical

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Timing will be critical

One to the balls, one to the face. I like it.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Timing will be critical

Maybe - but not if I was on the receiving end.

[Ken 16]

Re: Timing will be critical

That's how I liked to be kissed, in the days before Covid.

[don't you hate it when you lose your account]

Re: Timing will be critical

Or just have 2 rear mounted shotguns fire at the same time so the forces cancel out. Could market it as comes with friendly fire at no extra cost.

[JDX]

Re: Timing will be critical

Maybe they let it do a backflip each shot, a bit like how Arnie reloads his shotgun in Terminator one-handed.

Recoil-less guns are hardly new though.

[Cederic]

Re: Timing will be critical

T2 I believe, and that remains one of the finest pieces of gunplay in cinema history.

[Why Not?]

Re: Timing will be critical

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.

[Jan 0]

Re: Timing will be critical

> the cost of a kill is getting disproportionate.

IIRC, I remember reading, back in the '70s, that the United States military used 76,000 rounds per VC supporter killed. Is it still going up?

[jake]

Re: Timing will be critical

How much of that was training, certification and other overhead?

How does that compare to other armies in other conflicts?

Not arguing, as I honestly don't know ... but I am curious.

[Toni the terrible]

Re: Timing will be critical

Recoiless canon / early bazookas etc

[Beeblebrox]

dynamically compensate for recoil

Surely just firing something with equal momentum in the opposite direction would be easiest - another shotgun pointing backwards (towards your own expendable assets?)

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: applies an equal and opposite force to the launch platform

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 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, there is already a better solution...

I was going to post a comment about adding a rear-facing gun, but I think yours is better.

On a slightly more serious note, perhaps it is time to reintroduce Gyro rounds?

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: RE: applies an equal and opposite force to the launch platform

there is nobody standing in the opposite direction to the target

Much like firing an anti-tank missile (or so I've heard)

[LeahroyNake]

ReCoilLess

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

[jake]

Re: ReCoilLess

"I'm guessing that once it fires it's primary mission is complete, send in another one."

We have a winner!

[JDX]

Re: ReCoilLess

I think if they were anywhere near the Queen they'd be considered enemies... bunch of idiots.

They broadly let people like you decide the CV response in the US. 200,000 people dead and no particular signs of slowing down.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: ReCoilLess

"The British Army is there to defend from external threats and not some Covidiots that fail to social distance when a little tipsy."

There's at least one Covidiot closer to Boris than that but he's more likely to be the one with his finger on the trigger.

[Cuddles]

Re: ReCoilLess

"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]

Doors

I read in the Times today that this drone is about 1m wide. How is it supposed to get indoors? - surely doors and windows are too narrow/difficult for it to fly through.

Can they just target terrorists with patio doors or conservatories?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Doors

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 :) ;) !!!

[Someone Else]

Re: Doors

Breonna Taylor, V1.1

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Doors

A carefully timed sideways drone flip while in forward flight. Or just shoot the bloody windows out.

[Snapper]

Re: Doors

Or blow the bloody doors off!

[DS999]

Re: Doors

If you are protecting the Queen I don't think being a meter wide is a problem. I doubt the Queen is living in run down hovels with standard sized doorways like the common folk.

[grrrrrrrr]

Re: Doors

I think they meant protecting the Queen from the enemies that don't live in her house, but elsewhere.

[DS999]

Re: Doors

You mean there won't be meter wide drones flying down the halls of Buckingham palace blasting shotguns at terrorists? There goes my script for the next James Bond movie!

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Doors

No problem. Plenty of wide entrances to the average sub-volcanic lair.

[You aint sin me, roit]

Curtains

Aka anti drone netting. As in

"Can't go through that window, sir... they've deployed anti drone nets!"

"You mean... they pulled the curtains?"

"Yes, and they closed the front door too. It's almost like they didn't want our drones flying inside!"

[JDX]

Re: Curtains

Shoot the door, send in the drone.

[JDX]

Re: Doors

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?

[Muscleguy]

Re: Doors

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

[cantankerous swineherd]

disappointing, but just a glitch.

[TDog]

Why Ounces?

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?

[Snapper]

Re: Why Ounces?

Remind me again, how long does Novichok take to disable someone?

[PhilipN]

Re: Why Ounces?

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.

[ThatOne]

Re: Why Ounces?

> Remind me again, how long does Novichok take to disable someone?

Not a problem, just make the target take it a couple days before you send in the drone - voila!

[Anonymous Coward]

One blast wonder?

Who says it needs to fire again?

If close enough, recoil or not, wouldn’t it be somewhat useful?

[big_D]

Re: One blast wonder?

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.

[Francis Boyle]

Small beer compared to

torpedoes, misiles (guided or not), kamikazes. War is wasteful in all sorts of ways.

[Cederic]

Re: Small beer compared to

To be fair, they're re-usable. Even if one does go down you can retrieve, repair, rearm and redeploy it.

[Danny 2]

World beating app

At last, finally a way to kill off those pesky students locked into Halls of Residence.

[JDX]

Re: World beating app

The rate they're infecting each other, you'd think they were trying to do it themselves.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Groovy lair

I see beaded curtains in doorways making a comeback.

[0laf]

Re: Groovy lair

as ever the more sophisticated the technology the simpler the counter measure.

Yep metal chain curtains like in a butcher shop would work really well to screw this bit of tech up

[Secta_Protecta]

A Big Spring?

"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...

[Anonymous Custard]

Re: A Big Spring?

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...

[Danny 2]

Re: A Big Spring?

"I used to fix tanks for a living"

I used to fix PCs that you could play tank games on. Guess which one of us can get laid using those boasts. Well, you don't need to guess.

[Cederic]

Re: A Big Spring?

You're just trying to stop us having fun giving it a go :(

[0laf]

RPG

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

[aje21]

Re: RPG

Using an RPG in a room is not a great idea. The exhaust gases will hit the wall behind you and be reflected. Someone has already solved that problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armbrust

[My-Handle]

Threat level...

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Threat level...

It also occurred to me that this is only viable for the, presumably, small target group of deaf terrorists.

Another form of defence would be to shoot the drone. With a shotgun.

[ThatOne]

Re: Threat level...

> 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".

[My-Handle]

Re: Threat level...

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.

[Jan 0]

Given that duck feathers are a reasonable counter to shotgun pellets (let's not divert our attention to ammunition and punt guns, eh?). How much of a deterrent is this to someone wearing motorcycle leathers, helmet and visor? Wouldn't a drone mounted .22 have better penetration?

[ThatOne]

> 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.)

[Allan 1]

Well, I learned from watching a certain youtube channels based on demolition and ranches, that combat shotguns normally shoot solid slugs, not shot.

[jake]

Combat shotguns shoot whatever loads are deemed necessary for a given situation.

Don't believe everything you see and hear on youtube ... The only reason any of it exists to get page hits. Especially that side of youtube.

[jake]

"duck feathers are a reasonable counter to shotgun pellets"

Interesting statement. Cite? Because my freezer says no ...

[Jan 0]

You either need a huge shotgun (a "puntgun") with high mass, high velocity "pellets", or you shoot the ducks from behind so the pellets are guided by the rear facing feathers straight into the ducks b0ody. I guess you shot your ducks in the back?

[jake]

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?

[ThatOne]

> 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.

[jake]

"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.

[Mark192]

Use case

A major use case for this is seeing if there's any enemy combatants inside a building.

Shotgun may be for 'unlocking' doors rather than people.

At a metre wide it's quite big... maybe it'll be paired with smaller drones that can fit through the holes in the door...

[Cederic]

I have a better idea

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.

[Ken 16]

World Beaters

I have complete faith in any application developed by the British government and I look forward to these drones being introduced to the PM in the drawing room of No. 10 for an excellent photo-op.

[Weiss_von_Nichts]

Safer and better

Oh, wow, a shotgun for indoor use. Fired by an "AI" over a wireless connection. That's certainly going to make the world a safer and better place. Where can I donate?

[USER100]

Counterproductive

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.