https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/rheinmetall_ag/press/themen_i...
As they are small, they do not need a lot of energy to be disabled, especially if they are jammed first.
This is already a thing due to the widespread use of laser rangefinders, designators, and the like, as well as the fact that the Chinese have fielded blinding laser weapons.
>>The Block 1A and newer (pneumatic driven) CIWS mounts fire at a rate of 4,500 rounds per minute with a 1,550-round magazine.
>>Shells fired by the Phalanx cost around $30 each and the gun typically fires 100 or more when engaging a target.[14]
>So it's about three grand to zap one drone, and you get 15 shootdowns before a human needs to shovel more ammo into the turret. That would make it vulnerable to a saturation attack.
You could imagine firing fewer rounds per salvo, but that only slightly mitigates it. Against drone swarms you kinda want directed energy weapons, either microwave or laser. Which don't exist, currently.
Also note that Phalanx is radar based, leaving it open to the usual suite of radar jamming/ECW/antiradiation attacks.
You can tip the odds back in your favor by emplacing more Phalanx systems, but at ten million bucks each, that limits you to stuff like defending small-size/high-value targets like the White House, rather than numerous and sprawling US military bases.
I mean, I can see how it’s less than ideal, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume you’d do more harm than good.
(Of course by the time you have to guard political rallies so much that "grenade attacks by drone swarms" becomes a reasonable threat scenario, you may have to rethink things and probably just cancel the rally for now.)
Or maybe release a bunch nylon filaments that will entangle any propellers and make the thing fall down ?
Second thought: is there something like a "constant airgun"? Where you just drop in pellets from a hopper into a high speed airstream?
That's pretty crazy to think of ... I guess the only justification for that is that the assets that are protected by such a system are worth more than that.
> You could imagine firing fewer rounds per salvo
If I learned anything from games, it's that you want AoE damage for swarming enemies ;-)
Emptying 6 or 8 4500 round Phalanx turrets at the half dozen cruise missile locked onto your aircraft carrier seems like a pretty sensible way to spend a million bucks.
These guys reckon they can detect, locate, and take down drones and drone swarms by jamming them with directed RF (not energy weapons as such): https://www.droneshield.com
These guys build "remotely operated weapons" that include 5.56mm up to 30mm cannons (as well as grenade launchers and missile launchers), and a "Counter Drone Defence System" that can drive them: https://www.eos-aus.com/defence/
I don't know it this works anything like as well on moving targets, but what you see at about 30 secs in this video looks like it'd take down most significanbtly-smaller-than-Predator drones pretty reliably at 900m out: https://vimeo.com/429825806 And I suspect 7.65 or 5.56 would probably work just as well as 50cal for that (though perhaps less accurately at long range?)
Not anything like as vicious as Phalanx, but if you're trying to protect against quadcopter or fixed wing drone swarms instead of cruise missiles, I'd bet they're remarkably more cost effective.
I could see larger, military versions of this being effective. Drones are pretty fragile and easy to take down.