By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On October 17th, unidentified drones were detected near the Reedo military barracks in South Estonia. One of the drones was brought down by allied forces using an anti-drone rifle. The Defense Forces, in collaboration with the Police and Border Guard Board, searched for the downed drone but were unable to locate it. The Reedo Barracks is a base for the U.S. Army’s 5th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment.
Read the original article here
NATO allies shoot down unidentified drone over US barracks in Estonia, and the immediate thought that comes to mind is the technology involved in taking it down. Specifically, the mention of an “anti-drone rifle” immediately conjures images of those directional jammers we’ve heard about. They disrupt the communication link, right? But the real question becomes, what happens when we’re dealing with drone swarms or, even more intriguing, the prospect of fiber-optic controlled drones? It’s a rapidly evolving field, and the countermeasures need to keep pace.
The fact that the drone was taken down suggests that the defenses worked, even if it took a while. There’s a sense of “finally,” as if this kind of incident has been anticipated. The whole scenario raises questions about what the attackers were planning and what lessons can be gleaned. The focus immediately shifts to the specific methods employed to down the drone. The use of an anti-drone rifle implies a non-kinetic solution, such as disrupting the drone’s control signals, as opposed to a physical strike, but it highlights the continuous arms race between offensive and defensive technologies.
Considering the countermeasures, there are many different solutions, each with its own pros and cons. Some rely on signal jammers to disrupt communications, while others use nets to physically capture the drone. Still others deploy high-powered, directed energy weapons like lasers. There are even more novel solutions such as drones that attack other drones, deploying nets to capture them. And of course, there is the approach of physically destroying the drone by firing a missile.
Regarding fiber-optic drones, the premise introduces another layer of complexity. These drones, connected via a physical cable, remove the reliance on wireless communication, making them harder to jam. Defending against them could require different strategies, perhaps focusing on disrupting or severing the fiber-optic link itself. One interesting idea involves using a chain-link fence topped with spinning blades, designed to snag and cut the fiber. Another approach involves modified bolas or wires launched to tangle or detach the fiber-optic cables.
The concept of using electric fields to interfere with a drone’s onboard electronics is another fascinating tactic. This is a very interesting concept, but the limitations are worth noting. It’s effective in a smaller area, but not so good for swarms. It would lead to a crash of the drone, similar to cutting the fiber-optic cable. The implications of this are interesting, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine, where these technologies are increasingly relevant.
The discussion also veers toward more creative and unconventional ideas. Someone mentions the idea of firing piano wire in an ‘X’ shape—a kind of improvised bolo—to ensnare drones. Such an approach, while seemingly simple, highlights the potential for imaginative solutions when facing an adaptable threat. It underscores that sometimes the best defense can be a clever, albeit unconventional, offense. The idea of training against drones using a skeet-shooting range also makes a lot of sense from a practical training perspective.
The possibility of drones equipped with mirrors adds another layer of hypothetical complexity. It’s a reminder that countermeasures must be dynamic, always evolving to counter emerging threats. The idea of the mirror being used to reflect a laser doesn’t sound very practical. It’s hard to imagine that the mirror will reflect enough energy to cause any damage to the target.
Finally, it underscores the need for constant vigilance and adaptability when it comes to base security. The use of high-power automatic systems for defense suggests the ongoing evolution of defensive technologies. It raises the question of what the future of anti-drone defense looks like, and what kind of solutions will work best. The goal is to provide multiple levels of defense in response to this evolving threat. The incident is a reminder that constant innovation and adaptation are essential to keep ahead of potential adversaries.