There was a decent sized push to develop such systems before and during WW2, but they were all beaten by radar.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/aircraft-detection-radar-1917-1940/
There was a decent sized push to develop such systems before and during WW2, but they were all beaten by radar.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/aircraft-detection-radar-1917-1940/
I'm aware of these, but now we have cheap sophisticated electronics that could in theory filter out random noise.
>sound of propellers >modulated light by propellers >RF of the FPV camera
Out of those three the last one is the simpler and more reliable if there's no AI drones.
So, just use 2.4GHz detectors, far simpler, the bitrate required by camera should make drones easy to filter out of any voice transmission, none of those drones are using LPI transmitters.
And would they so effective as human operated drones? They probably would fly like silicon schizos locking on any shadow from 500m. if you need to get close with a human operator it would be self-defeating.
RF is directional, and the whole battlefield is saturated with EW.
This contraption would sit under the canopy for concealement, so you can't use the second solution.
No. Those drones have simple monopole antennas, omnidirectional, they aren't drones with sat antennas. A directional antenna on the drone would be very counterproductive.
Yes, but it's propagation is mostly LOS and in the battlefield only cellphones could emit on that band. A FPV camera probably would emit a very annoying and easy to detect "continuous chrip" just from above, a place not so congested.
It's been tried.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
>tfw someone thought OP's idea warranted enough merit to spend tax payer money on
There was a decent sized push to develop such systems before and during WW2, but they were all beaten by radar.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/aircraft-detection-radar-1917-1940/
I'm aware of these, but now we have cheap sophisticated electronics that could in theory filter out random noise.
The "magic box" part is actually way harder than you think.
t. have done research on this exact topic
as president of WhyDontWeJust Engineering, a subsidiary of Idea Guys Inc, I disagree
It would work
I think thermal cameras are probably the way to go
*detects your drone*
Heh, nothing personnel whippersnapper
just pay some hispanics to sit behind the soldiers and watch the skies
>sound of propellers
>modulated light by propellers
>RF of the FPV camera
Out of those three the last one is the simpler and more reliable if there's no AI drones.
So, just use 2.4GHz detectors, far simpler, the bitrate required by camera should make drones easy to filter out of any voice transmission, none of those drones are using LPI transmitters.
They would just switch to AI drones in that scenario
Now you're talking about drones at least +100k USD and currently non-existant.
Hobbyists already have them
Dji already comes with some ai shit in them
And would they so effective as human operated drones? They probably would fly like silicon schizos locking on any shadow from 500m. if you need to get close with a human operator it would be self-defeating.
may i see this hobbyist AI drone that can seek targets and IFF?
RF is directional, and the whole battlefield is saturated with EW.
This contraption would sit under the canopy for concealement, so you can't use the second solution.
No. Those drones have simple monopole antennas, omnidirectional, they aren't drones with sat antennas. A directional antenna on the drone would be very counterproductive.
Ok, but isn't the 2.4ghz band super congested?
Yes, but it's propagation is mostly LOS and in the battlefield only cellphones could emit on that band. A FPV camera probably would emit a very annoying and easy to detect "continuous chrip" just from above, a place not so congested.
>get on my level
>http://muzeumgryf.pl/en/exhibits/zil-131-central-azk-5/