Don't Bring A Gun To A Scifi Drone Fight

[Spacescifi]

 

How many tines have we seen this in scifi?

I think if FTL or warp starships are viable, then gun battles of any sort on land become obsolete.

 

Why?

Drones.

 

 

Here is a scifi example of a drone, if deployed in swarms, would absolutelt wreck any human soldier group there is.

Imagine hockey puck sized drones that fly via battery powered quadcopter, but have a small rear solid fuel rocket motor too which allows the drone, which already has the explosive force of a hand grenade, to become essentially an RPG for a brief period. Batterry life of quadcopter flight time lasts a jaw dropping 7 HOURS.  Drone has AI and camera and thermal sensors. 

About the only counter to this threat is wide spray shotguns.

 

But if a few thousand drones are dropped from a plane flying overhead... the results favor the drones more than defenders, especially if the defenders are just humanoid soldiers with guns.

 

What do you think? Would humanoid soldiers become virtually obsolete in sucha settinh. Only there to clean up whatever the drones missed?

Edited February 28, 2020 by Spacescifi

[Flavio hc16]

are you talking about this maybe? 

 

 

this is a short film but it's talking about a real, terrifying future

 

[radonek]

You can consider human to be a drone engineered by nature to work  at certain conditions and it actually performs quite well. It's versatile, independent, easy on maintenance and can be extensively upgraded. Replacing it will take a lot more then finding a few particular cases where it is at disadvantage. Not saying it's not possible, but it it will take a lot of technological edge. I'm thinking  grey goo, knife missiles (of Culture fame), this kind of stuff.

But take a man out of environment it is designed for and it fails miserably. Seventees tech can beat humans underwater or  in space combat. So, I can see "space marines" having a role , but people manning the guns of space battleships... nope. No crew, no space battleships.

[DDE]

@Spacescifi, I think you just re-invented Brilliant Pebbles

[Codraroll]

A backpack full of batteries and shoulder-mounted auto-aiming lasers should take care of that threat. You could possibly also just jam the drones, cause them to detonate prematurely, or shoot down the plane that dropped them in the first place.

[kerbiloid]

There is a more devastating thing that the drones.

Spoiler

Memes.

Spread them and demotivate the human soldiers.

Why bother with drones when it's enough to force the soldiers to wear so thick and heavy protection that they can't walk.

Against partisans spread the cheap microphones and webcams everywhere to stop them from hiding. Then you just need a police and sometimes SWAT.

A drone descent can be wiped out in a seconds by EMP, or fragmentation charges, or by aggressive or sticky substances.

Edited February 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[KerikBalm]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Imagine hockey puck sized drones that fly via battery powered quadcopter, but have a small rear solid fuel rocket motor too which allows the drone, which already has the explosive force of a hand grenade, to become essentially an RPG for a brief period. Batterry life of quadcopter flight time lasts a jaw dropping 7 HOURS.  Drone has AI and camera and thermal sensors. 

About the only counter to this threat is wide spray shotguns.

7 hour flight time battery? seems a bit ridiculous.

Right now though, quad copters with a handgun would be pretty deadly. They could also perch on something and wait rather than hovering to conserve batteries.

.... but yea ... small drones with guns could wreck human infantry.

They don't even need to fly:

Those with some ai so they can be autonomous (otherwise, expect the comms to be jammed), they will be more durable, react faster, present a lower profile, and outgun human infantry.

In the near future, they could be on the frontlines, with the humans behind them fixing and directing them.

[kerbiloid]

Do you remember?
 

Spoiler

(spoiler deleted as is a half of the movie)

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Scotius]

Just put a spring-loaded container full of "fighter"drones stacked like Starlink sats on one or two soldiers per platoon. At the sight of incoming danger he will deploy protective umbrella of mini-bots specialized in killing other drones, Just another chapter in endless weapons race.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

(Violence warning)

[Spacescifi]

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

7 hour flight time battery? seems a bit ridiculous.

Right now though, quad copters with a handgun would be pretty deadly. They could also perch on something and wait rather than hovering to conserve batteries.

.... but yea ... small drones with guns could wreck human infantry.

They don't even need to fly:

Those with some ai so they can be autonomous (otherwise, expect the comms to be jammed), they will be more durable, react faster, present a lower profile, and outgun human infantry.

In the near future, they could be on the frontlines, with the humans behind them fixing and directing them.

 

Indeed it is ridiculous, but it is also somewhat to be more expected given settings that are so high tech it is plot breaking (looking at you star trek ad star wars).

 

Media based scifi seems more derived from a mix of old western films and sea navy traditions mashed together than the technology for the high tech. setting that would actually be optimal.

Think of this, a common scifi trope. Pirates board a spaceship or station in zero gravity to loot it.

One tiny problem.

Goo autocannon.

Don't even need drones for this, surface tension makes getting even water off in space hard. Imagine what a dedicated sticky stream of goo could do to would-be pirates in zero g in the tight confines of a spaceship? At this point pirates are better off blowing the ship up and chasing down the wreckage for any valuables.

Too risky to board it.

D

Edited February 28, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

An inflatable balloon in front of the boarding party would effectively gather all goo.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Think of this, a common scifi trope. Pirates board a spaceship or station in zero gravity to loot it.

One tiny problem.

...I have the door controls, and they don't have spacesuits. Somehow.

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

7 hour flight time battery? seems a bit ridiculous.

For fixed-wing I'm hearing it's more like 10 hours at this point.

[magnemoe]

 

19 minutes ago, DDE said:

...I have the door controls, and they don't have spacesuits. Somehow.

For fixed-wing I'm hearing it's more like 10 hours at this point.

If station have some sort of gun who would be effective in space or you has an ship with an main engine boarding would be very hard. 
Boarding stopped being effective as an tactic around the US civil war as fire rates become to fast, you also moved from wooden ships with sails to armored ships there crew was inside making the deck an killing zone if somebody tried it. 

Note you can still force them to surrender or getting blown up and then board. 
 

[p1t1o]

9 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

<snikt>

 

Ok but on this planet, we have guns and missiles and cars and tanks and ICBMS and nuclear submarines.

But you still get people murdered with rocks, people have fistfights and terrorists run through the streets with machetes.

So of courses youd still have gunfights, they wouldnt be happening on every street corner every day, but neither do they do that here.

 

As famously quoted by the Great Capt. Jean-Luc Picard:

"RAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!"

 

Spoiler

I know that a holographic gun and thus not really a "gun" but gimme a break, there arent THAT many gifs of starfleet crew with firearms!

***edit***

Also, there is a reason why todays most advanced warfighters still carry a bayonet.

The higher your tech, generally, the less fault resistant it becomes.

You cant upload a virus or jam a blade. It cant get clogged with grit and functions equally well underwater or in vacuum.

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by p1t1o

[Spacescifi]

10 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

are you talking about this maybe? 

 

 

this is a short film but it's talking about a real, terrifying future

 

 

Mine's are upgraded with single use rocket motors and solid fuels, as well as armed with an explosive charge.

In other words, my version is considerably worse than the video's for damage. Since a swarm of the killbots can swarm toward a target, but mine can do that and even launch like hundreds or thousands of rocket propepelled grenades into their targets. It all depends on the number of drones.

RPG's are scary stuff, just ask any western soldier who fought in the middle east.

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

 

Ok but on this planet, we have guns and missiles and cars and tanks and ICBMS and nuclear submarines.

But you still get people murdered with rocks, people have fistfights and terrorists run through the streets with machetes.

So of courses youd still have gunfights, they wouldnt be happening on every street corner every day, but neither do they do that here.

 

As famously quoted by the Great Capt. Jean-Luc Picard:

"RAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!"

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I know that a holographic gun and thus not really a "gun" but gimme a break, there arent THAT many gifs of starfleet crew with firearms!

***edit***

Also, there is a reason why todays most advanced warfighters still carry a bayonet.

The higher your tech, generally, the less fault resistant it becomes.

You cant upload a virus or jam a blade. It cant get clogged with grit and functions equally well underwater or in vacuum.

 

 

Police forces may carry firearms, but I can see drones being their mainstay, even supporting officers when confronting violent criminals.

If a shooter takes cover, an officer cannot shoot around it easily, but an attack flying drone will laugh at that and ruin most criminal days in short order.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

A biometric lock and electric ignition on any firearms, together with 24/7 person location system allows the police avoid using swarms of the murderdrones.

[farmerben]

Which is why my home defense gun of choice is a 12ga.  I'm trained to shoot hockey puck sized targets flying in multiple directions simultaneously.  The little buggers might win eventually, but I'll damn sure try to take a few out with me.  

Edited February 28, 2020 by farmerben

[p1t1o]

@Spacescifi

Oh for sure armed drones will be a thing, most likely, but it won't make smallarms obsolete IMO

[TheSaint]

Armed robots have already been used by law enforcement to end standoffs. In the 2016 Dallas shootout, the Dallas PD used an improvised grenade attached to a bomb disposal robot to kill a armed suspect holed up in an inaccessible location.

However, I think it will be a very long time before LEOs accept the idea of armed autonomous drones. If you want a little insight into this idea, look at the whole smart guns issue. Manufacturers have been working and working on developing a firearm that can only be fired by its owner. They have a lot of promising ideas, but nothing has ever really been brought to market. You know who some of the chief resisters to the idea are? Law enforcement officers. Mainly because they understand that their sidearm is a piece of lifesaving equipment, and anything that could prevent them from depressing that trigger, either by action or by failure, could cost them or someone they are sworn to protect their lives. And I suspect that they will view autonomous weapons with much the same suspicion. That it is something deadly within their sphere of influence that is not completely under their control. It will be subject to failure, hacking, lapses in artificial judgement, battery life depletion, etc, etc. I suspect they will be very reluctant to trust their lives to them in anything but the most dire circumstances.

If you want a really good argument against autonomous weapons, read the piece that Robert Zubrin wrote on them over on National Review last year.

[Spacescifi]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Which is why my home defense gun of choice is a 12ga.  I'm trained to shoot hockey puck sized targets flying in multiple directions simultaneously.  The little buggers might win eventually, but I'll damn sure try to take a few out with me.  

 

LOL. I don't and cannot think of a reason why they (you will find out soon enough) would even send the drones after you... unless you gave them one.

 

52 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

Armed robots have already been used by law enforcement to end standoffs. In the 2016 Dallas shootout, the Dallas PD used an improvised grenade attached to a bomb disposal robot to kill a armed suspect holed up in an inaccessible location.

However, I think it will be a very long time before LEOs accept the idea of armed autonomous drones. If you want a little insight into this idea, look at the whole smart guns issue. Manufacturers have been working and working on developing a firearm that can only be fired by its owner. They have a lot of promising ideas, but nothing has ever really been brought to market. You know who some of the chief resisters to the idea are? Law enforcement officers. Mainly because they understand that their sidearm is a piece of lifesaving equipment, and anything that could prevent them from depressing that trigger, either by action or by failure, could cost them or someone they are sworn to protect their lives. And I suspect that they will view autonomous weapons with much the same suspicion. That it is something deadly within their sphere of influence that is not completely under their control. It will be subject to failure, hacking, lapses in artificial judgement, battery life depletion, etc, etc. I suspect they will be very reluctant to trust their lives to them in anything but the most dire circumstances.

If you want a really good argument against autonomous weapons, read the piece that Robert Zubrin wrote on them over on National Review last year.

 

Well I am a scifi writer, so the drones of the OP would actually be alien technology. Although I am still deciding what scenario they would be used for.

 

The one that comes most easily to me is this:

 

Occupied: Aliens occupy Earth and establish trade with humans but also impose a kind of service tax (since our money is worthless to them).

In other words, they employ humans for several months a year as workers doing jobs so they don't have/want to do. In return the aliens provide certain types of their technology and medical devices, food etc. When the human's period of service is over they send them back home.

Meanwhile on Earth the aliens generally only get involved with support for human politics or religion to the extent that either supports their interests. TBH the aliens don't care what humans believe so long they don't start getting uppity nor start trying to convert said aliens to human religions.

 

When warnings fail to persuade humans otherwise... they send in the drones.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

 

10 hours ago, TheSaint said:

read the piece that Robert Zubrin wrote on them over on National Review last year.

 

A rather naive story from a romantic dreamer, from the very first chapter.

 

Not to get into politics but...

Quote

    In the fall of 1989, the peoples of Eastern Europe rose up against their Communist oppressors. The tyrants ruling these nations had no moral compunction about shooting their subjects down, but fortunately, they couldn’t count on their armed forces to do it. So the Iron Curtain fell, and two years later, even the mighty Soviet Union was brought down when the Red Army, sent into Moscow, refused the orders of those attempting to brutally reinstate Stalinist rule.

For various reasons the USSR faced deep economical problems and was already in the long Afghanistan war, so was more interested in economical reformation and co-opertaion with Western economics rather than in another war. Especially in cooperation with Western Germany at the moment.

So, the Eastern Germany was reconnected with the Western one (partially this was not made UK and France happy very much due to the Germany enforcement, but later everyone relaxed).
As it's known, they were going to send troops to Poland, but Jaruzelski ensured that there's no need in this, and he would keep things ok on his own.
Romania got into a deepest economical crysis due to the oil prices fall.
So, the Soviet military forces were limitedly used only on the Soviet territory, to enforce the police, but not outside.

In this situation the local authorities  of the Eastern European states (originally except Romania) mostly preferred to avoid blood, the authorities of the Eastern Germany were not asked very much about their preferences.
The Czechoslovakian rebels scared the Red Army by painting a memorial tank in a park in magenta (how could you defeat such daredevils?!).
So the thing was not in the soldiers' readiness to shoot, but in the authorities' question, what to do then, when the Soviet partner is too busy with its own problems and everyone will go on his own.
In Romania the army first shot at the demonstrators, but two weeks later and under command of the same general had arrested and shot the opposite side.

To Moscow'91 the troops were sent, but not thar "they refused the orders to brutally reinstate", they just didn't receive such order before they took the opposite side.
The USSR president (Gorbachov) was locked in Crimea by the Emergency Commitee which included every high authority (Vice-President, MoD, others) but him.
The First Secretary of the Moscow City Commitee of the Communist Party (Yeltsin) was in opposition to both of them, and while his opponents popularity was very low, his one was growing.
So, they have brought the army into Moscow and placed them along the streets, but were not sure what to do next.
Local authorities and police in other cities were waiting for who wins in Moscow.
Then the armed forces in Moscow were adopted by the opposition led by Yeltsin and stayed neutral until the Emergency Commitee was arrested (except the casual incident with three victims who were trying to capture an APC, one was shot, another one was hit by the vehicle).

So, Zubrin probably just watched SW too much. Soldiers don't shoot when they are not told to shoot.

Quote

But imagine what might have occurred had those soldiers been not human beings but robots, lacking in any sympathy or humanity, ready, willing, and able to reliably massacre anyone the authorities chose to be their targets.

Spoiler

"Imagine, ... !"

 

[radonek]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The Czechoslovakian rebels scared the Red Army by painting a memorial tank in a park in magenta (how could you defeat such daredevils?!).

That's a nice story except color was a pink  and it happened two years later.

Later, it was found that some Party officials were indeed probing army about possible deployment against protesters and were firmly put off on the ground that men would not be willing to fire at their own people (and neither would most of the officers). So Mr. Zubrin actually has a point here. 

[Reactordrone]

You want the Echo Papa 607, https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Echo_Papa_607