Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Micro Drones' Killer Intent

My recent piece on Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) in Wired News> traces a familiar pattern in the evolution of air warfare. When balloons were invented they were first used for observation, then for bombing. The first fragile biplanes flying over the trenches in WWI were unarmed, but within a few years they carrying machine guns and bombs. Unmanned Air Vehicles like Predator were flying reconnaissance for years before they were armed for strike missions.
(UAV pedants note: the V-1 doesn’t count as it was only ever one-way)

WASP.jpgSo it’s not surprising that British SAS troopers should decide that rather than just spying on Taliban with their WASP micro air vehicles, they should be able to take them out. Sticking a small C4 charge on these toy-sized craft is a relatively crude approach, but one that should effectively convert them from silent spies to stealth assassins. And at $3,000 a time they are by no means the most expensive weapon around.

But, as the article explains, the US Air Force has much more ambitious plans for arming MAVs to take out installations, vehicles and people. They might initially be used individually like the SAS’s WASPs, but the obvious approach is to release swarms of them as I have previously described – networked robots forming an efficient single unit.

One area I did not have space for was the use of incendiaries, which can be far more effective than explosive pound-for-pound. This is real ‘fire-ant warfare’.

A single insect-sized MAV carrying a few milliliters of napalm would be a dangerous nuisance, especially indoors or inside a vehicle. Several dozen of them would be lethal, especially when they can locate stored fuel or ammunition. Just program them to look for those distinctive ‘danger inflammable’ signs

Similarly, thermite could give tiny robots a disproportionate destructive capability. A mixture of powdered metal and metal oxide, it burns at very high temperature (up to over 2,500 degrees centigrade), enough to turn most metals to liquid. It can burn through metal; in WWII, thermite charges were used as a quick way of disabling artillery. It would not take too much thermite to make an artillery barrel hazardous to use; and surface-to-air missile batteries are an obvious target.

One armed MAV, or ‘termite with thermite’, would not be too much of a menace, but dozens or hundreds could be effective, against even large installations. The small size of the warhead is offset by the extreme precision with which it can be placed by the sort of flying/crawling robot insect which the Air Force has in mind.

This should help put the earlier report on swarming robot cockroaches intended to attack underground installations into perspective. Such weapons are too indiscriminate to be used in an urban environment, but in an enemy bunker, everything is fair game. Stamp on one and the thermite will burn through your shoes and keep going...

Individual cockroaches can burn through grilles or other obstacles, making a way for the rest of the swarm. With their collective intelligence they can identify the complexes vulnerable points, and by combining together, they can destroy most things. When the lights in your bunker start to go out and the air fills with the smoke of burning insulation, how long would you hang around?

-- David Hambling

Latest Comments

Nice little vampire , but can it fly through a mosquito net? Or sleet?

Posted by: Russell Seitz at March 11, 2007 6:29 PM



Yes, I thought of mentioning the bats, as they have something in common: the small size of the warhead is offset by the precision of delivery.

With WWII technology you need many tons of bombs to hit a building. Later that came down to a single guided bomb and these days you can put a Hellfire missile through a specified window. MAVs would increase the precision beyond that, and a pound of MAVs will (one day) be able to take out a target with extreme accuracy and zero
collateral damage.

Consider the sort of mission currently carried out by Hellfire-armed Predators. if instead of firing a missile, the Predator unleashed a swarm of MAVs, they could get close enough to the target to get a positive ID and kill the specified target without endangering bystanders. Crawling MAVs could even pick up DNA samples to confirm identity, and all the unused MAVs could rendezvous back with the Predator ready for the next mission.

Such an MAV swarm could also carry out searches over a large area for an individual or go sniffing out explosive. Or they could perch near a vehicle/safe house and lie in wait.

These capabilities are far in excess of anything currently out there.

Posted by: David hambling at January 31, 2007 2:37 AM


This approach was tried during WWII. They strapped tiny napalm bombs to bats. The bats were to fly into the wooden eaves of the typical Japanese house and wreak havoc. I saw it on the History Channel a few months ago. World's Weirdest Weapons or something like that.

Posted by: jeremy at January 30, 2007 11:49 PM


In response to Solomon: One answer is survivability. Take a bat to a football flying at your face; now take a bat to swarm of wasps flying at your face.

You'll likley render the ball harmless and hit it to the ground, you'll also likley wack a wasp or 2... 50 others wasps will soon be biting your face and neck.

Of course there are counter-measures to swarms. Weapons such as water-canons, HEMP, and nukes.

Posted by: John at January 30, 2007 9:17 PM


UAVs have a special kind of precision that smart bombs don't -- they get the same CEP as a smart weapon but they can arrive slowly, perhaps even stopping on or near the target, and then execute complex or articulated actions when they arrive. Imagine a UAV trained to land on a metallic ventilation grille and then open a small canister of laughing gas / nerve gas / fluorescent taggants into the intake. You could either kill or track everyone in the facility. As above, imagine sending a group of UAVs to drop thermite on the same spot, in sequence, so that a near-vertical opening was created leading into a deeply-buried facility. A special forces team or a very high precision bomb could put a fuel-air explosive down the shaft and make it a very unfriendly place.

The precision arrival along with the possibility for departure (or onsite BDA, or onsite intel collection, or-or-or...) makes them either (a) the next step in UAVs or (b) the next step in smart bombs, or both. Calling it a step backwards isn't giving the innovations the credit they deserve, but calling it "revolutionary" (vice "evolutionary") overstates the case until we see some innovative doctrines employed.

Posted by: JRP at January 30, 2007 1:25 PM


» View All 6 Comments

» Post a Comment