Author Topic: Drone Killer  (Read 837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Labbug

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 821

Offline trailrunner

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • southeast of disorder
Re: Drone Killer
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2018, 05:41:54 AM »
When I worked for the Army, I did a lot of work in C-UAS systems.  I've been out of that area for two years now, but this system looks a typical electronic warfare approach.  Radar does wide-area search, hands it off to the EOIR system for fine track and maybe ID, and then jam it.  I've seen a dozen different systems that use this approach.  There are pros and cons to these types of systems, but they are nothing special.  RADA was pushing their radar systems, and Sierra Nevada came to my lab several times pitching their products.  Every couple of months a different team of contractors would get together and come up with a new system.  However, the fundamental problem was that DoD (and other government agencies) could not define what they needed in terms of range and other specifications.  Whenever I briefed my system, I would tell the O6s that we have the building blocks for a C-UAS system, but they needed to tell me what they needed -- long range, short range, or whatever, and what ROEs (rules of engagement) they wanted.

Beware of the stuff you read by Allison Barrie on Fox News.  Somehow she portrays herself as an expert on military tech, but many of her articles are old, and most are just repeating what the BD (business development) folks tell her.

Offline Labbug

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Drone Killer
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2018, 09:19:50 AM »
When I worked for the Army, I did a lot of work in C-UAS systems.  I've been out of that area for two years now, but this system looks a typical electronic warfare approach.  Radar does wide-area search, hands it off to the EOIR system for fine track and maybe ID, and then jam it.  I've seen a dozen different systems that use this approach.  There are pros and cons to these types of systems, but they are nothing special.  RADA was pushing their radar systems, and Sierra Nevada came to my lab several times pitching their products.  Every couple of months a different team of contractors would get together and come up with a new system.  However, the fundamental problem was that DoD (and other government agencies) could not define what they needed in terms of range and other specifications.  Whenever I briefed my system, I would tell the O6s that we have the building blocks for a C-UAS system, but they needed to tell me what they needed -- long range, short range, or whatever, and what ROEs (rules of engagement) they wanted.

Beware of the stuff you read by Allison Barrie on Fox News.  Somehow she portrays herself as an expert on military tech, but many of her articles are old, and most are just repeating what the BD (business development) folks tell her.


Thank you.