[dghlsakjg]

Clouds and nighttime are a barrier to visual detection. Even with good effectiveness the conditions needed for that would mean that you have far less than 50% uptime, and your downtime is predictable to your adversary.

A cheap radar takes an order of magnitude less power to run on hardware that is cheaper than an LLM and can see way farther than a camera.

[energy123]

Radar can't effectively see the new low-altitude small fiber optic spool first-person drones that are redefining frontline war.

The solution is going to be multi-modal (optical + audio) and imperfect. The above poster is correct that an ordinary camera with computer vision (not an LLM, of course) is going to be part of the multimodal defense in depth.

Shahed-type one-way attack drones are important to defend against, but not as impactful in terms of frontline body count, given they just slam into a pre-programmed target.

[MobiusHorizons]

The article and this thread are about shaheed style drones.

As far as I know, stopping fiber optic fpv drones leans more on physical barriers that catch the fiber (eg road nets) rather than trying to detect and destroy the drone. It’s usually too late by the time you can hear or see a drone that size.

[energy123]

> It’s usually too late by the time you can hear or see a drone that size.

What does the asymptote looks like as defender and aggressor keep iterating. Who has the advantage? Can optical technology get so good at detecting (at least when it isn't raining) that eventually the balance shifts in favor of the defender?

[dghlsakjg]

My comment was about Shaheds like the article we are commenting on.

for what you are talking about, audio is a great option