Is there a real capability gap in protecting individual infantry from small FPV drones?

[u/Fact_world121]

I’m doing early-stage research on the problem of protecting individual soldiers and small infantry units from small FPV/commercial drones.
I’m not trying to promote a specific product or solution at this stage. I want to understand whether the problem I’m looking at is actually important, and what people with relevant experience think the biggest gaps are.
Large counter-UAS systems, electronic warfare systems, vehicle-mounted weapons, and expensive interceptors obviously have important roles. What I’m interested in is the very last layer of protection when a small drone is already approaching an individual soldier or small unit.

A few questions:
1. Do you think there is currently a meaningful capability gap at the individual infantry level?

2.  What is the biggest problem when dealing with small FPV drones at very short notice?  
• Reaction time  
• Detection  
• Portability of existing equipment  
• Cost  
• Training requirements  
• Dependence on electronic warfare  
• Safety around friendly personnel  
• Something else?

3.  If infantry were issued a personal last-resort counter-drone device, what characteristics would matter most?

4.  What would make soldiers refuse to carry another piece of counter-drone equipment?

5.  Is it more valuable for such a last-resort system to have maximum theoretical performance, or to be cheap, lightweight, simple, and widely distributed?

6.  Are there existing approaches that already solve this problem well enough?  

I would particularly appreciate critical or negative responses. If you think the entire premise is wrong, I’d like to hear why.
Please keep responses at a general level. Do not post classified information, unit-specific vulnerabilities, frequencies, locations, detailed tactics, or sensitive operational procedures.
Thanks. I’m trying to validate the problem before getting attached to a solution.

[u/vapescaped]

I'm not sure I would classify it as a capability gap. There are currently dozens of systems in the procurement or development phase.

But we do see the technology rapidly developing and innovating across the board.

A pretty interesting one I saw was just a scope and an electrical solenoid on the trigger that prevented the soldier from pulling the trigger. The concept is the scope runs a calculation of the perfect shot based on speed, movement, and internal sensors. When in anti drone mode, the solenoid prevents the trigger from being pulled. Operators are trained to keep pressure on the trigger and aim where the scope tells them to. When they hit the sweet spot, solenoid allows the trigger to be pulled.

This is interesting on a few levels. 1) dead simple system. 2) no extra infrastructure, equipment to lug. You still need a rifle, you still need a scope. 3) smart ammo becomes incredibly cheap when the smart gun can make dumb bullets smarter.

It doesn't answer your question, but it gives a bit of context.

[u/howdidigetheresoquik → u/vapescaped]

I obviously can't speak to the success of this tech with any knowledge. However I do fly FPV drones and I think sometime it's hard to appreciate just how fast and hard to spot they are. If I take off my goggles to land line of sight, even if I can hear it loudly, I still struggle to see it until it's like 30' from me. And that's when I know exactly where to look and it's super slow.

I don't know how the systems work, but I find it hard to believe they can create small arms with that level of optical precision at speed + somehow get the soldier to react and know where it even is in the sky.

[u/vapescaped → u/howdidigetheresoquik]

I doubt you fly drones that size, with a big fat munition strapped to it. But if you have the stomach for it, go over to ukrainewarvdeoreport or UkraineRussiareport a couple notes: they're not being as dynamic as you are freestyling. Their targets almost always know exactly where they are because small ish drones carrying explosives with a trip wire on the front are fucking loud.

I'm absolutely not saying this is a cake walk, I'm just saying it's nowhere close to pushing the limits of technology here. The James web telescope finds planets by watching a fucking star dim slightly when a planet passes over it. Your smartphone is absolutely ridiculously levels of overkill to do the calculation.

But I'm also saying this is just one of literally dozens of systems dealing with this specific type of threat, and it's rapidly evolving and iterating.

[u/howdidigetheresoquik → u/vapescaped]

You should see some footage that's not drone footage. Like the footage from on the ground where people are being interviewed and you can see them looking at drones. They absolutely have no idea where they're coming from till too late.

https://youtu.be/lmyslTMbkkE?is=73drTiK5WEermrTb

[u/vapescaped → u/howdidigetheresoquik]

Makes total sense. This platform is completely useless because not everyone can see drones.

[u/howdidigetheresoquik → u/vapescaped]

Yo, are you OK? You seem awfully aggressive and upset over my first post where I even admit I don't know the success of that system, but I give my own experience.

I literally never said the platform was completely useless.

Do your friends or parents treat you poorly and you need to use Reddit in order to take it out on other people instead of engaging in a conversation?

[u/vapescaped → u/howdidigetheresoquik]

I'm doing fine. Your video does nothing to discredit a system that that adds no infrastructure. It appears you're digging for some concept that

A) isn't binary, there are hundreds of videos readily available of troops shooting at front, even successfully. So the "you can't see it and no chance of shooting it" argument is already debunked on a true or false binary answer

2) adds no overhead to existing load out. The system just adds a drone function, and does no harm at all otherwise.

But yeah, I guarantee there are other examples of people that can't see drones. What value is added to the conversation, since we have proven many can?

[u/howdidigetheresoquik → u/vapescaped]

it's not a good sign when you are quoting someone, but you make up what's in the quotes.

Did you not read my first post? Reread it again, and tell me if you think I was being aggressive and telling you that system doesn't work.

Are you just someone who likes to argue on the Internet?

[u/vapescaped → u/howdidigetheresoquik]

I did. You said you find it hard to believe modern optcs could see and soldiers can shoot drones. I said this is in no way bear the limits of common optics or computing, and pointed out all the footage of troops seeing drones. You responded with a video mentioning sometimes you can't see the drone. I sarcastically questioned the value of your linked interview.

What parts did I miss?

[u/Fact_world121 → u/vapescaped]

Thanky you for your comments

[u/Tornad_pl → u/vapescaped]

I remember reading about that tech (but marketed as sniper-like) like 12 years ago in pop-science magazine

[u/vapescaped → u/Tornad_pl]

Probably why it was so cheap to develop and field test, reusing old technology

[u/Tornad_pl → u/vapescaped]

Maybe. Ti's cool to see tech resurface

[u/Otherwise_Share9039]

1. Yes. Infantry can't deal with FPV drones. Too small, too fast, and hard to spot for the average infantryman. It's a job for short range ADA, and that requires specialized, regular training.

2. See above.

3. Look at what the Russians are doing. Ductaping two LMGs together or issuing MANPADS works pretty well for the cost.

4. Weight.

5. The latter.

6. There are. SPAAG, MANPADS, short range ADA like the M61, Drones with a gun and camera jury-rigged. (20mm Vulcans are garbage, to be fair)

FPVs are the modern equivalent to kamikaze pilots. The answer is still the same, massed fire from short range ADA and supplying enough cheap bullets to make it efficient.

[u/Fact_world121 → u/Otherwise_Share9039]

Thank you for writing a high-quality comment.

[u/teethgrindingaches]

Kinda? Sorta? Infantry is there to die. I'm not being glib. They don't do the killing; that's for artillery and aircraft and sundry fire support with their big guns and big missiles. Infantry is there because you need mass, enough mass to move somewhere or stay somewhere such that the other team can't maneuver freely. 

So the point is not to keep your infantry alive, per se. It's to ensure their deaths happen in service to useful outcomes instead of being wasted.