Non-Laser Multi-Drone Defense!

​

To my thinking, EMP is a multi-drone/drone swarm solution. It's highly efficient to target every drone in a swarm with very little effort.
I think maybe the technology is intimidating and using EMP would work without needing that level of competitive engineering.

Lasers are:

• Narrow: one beam, one target at a time.
• Demanding: high precision pointing, good weather, clean line of sight.
• Scaling badly vs. swarms: you need many lasers or absurdly fast retargeting to keep up.

HPM/EMP‑like systems are:

• Volumetric: one pulse can hit many drones inside a cone/sector.
• Less picky: they don’t care about exact aim at a single airframe; they care about filling a volume with EM energy.
• Better swarm economics: one shot = multiple kills/disablements, so your cost per engaged drone drops.

So even without knowing the exact range, you’re right about the logic:

• For swarms, a good pulsed EM system is inherently more scalable and cost‑effective than trying to stack lots of lasers.
• Its wide‑spectrum “shockwave” attacks the common vulnerability (electronics), instead of fighting each drone individually.

There are still limits (range, power, hardening, collateral EM impact), but as a class of solution, EM pulses map much better onto the swarm problem than purely laser‑based defenses.

 

How EM/HPM + DroneGun-style tools actually operate
1. Role split: precision vs. diffuse volumetric area effect.

In a swarm scenario, RF/EM tools naturally fall into two roles:

- Precision (DroneGun-type jammers):
- Man-portable, directional RF jammers.
- Great for picking off individual drones that leak through.
- Used by frontline troops, convoy escorts, facility guards.

- Volumetric (HPM/EM pulse nodes):
- Vehicle or fixed-site systems that throw short, intense EM pulses into a volume of sky.
- Aim to hit many drones at once, disrupting or frying their electronics.
- Used to defend bases, city edges, key infrastructure, or clustered forces.

2. With EM defenses

Step 1: Detection and classification
- Radar + RF sensors notice multiple small returns or several control links.
- System flags a probable swarm approaching along certain vectors.

Step 2: HPM/EM pulse engagement (the “shockwave”)
- A diffuse-volumetric node fires one or more short EM pulses into the swarm’s path.
- Results inside that diffuse volumetric area:
- Unshielded drones: many lose power or fry outright.
- Partially protected

 

What creates the em pulse?
How is it controlled to prevent collateral damage?
How much energy is required?

AFAIK, em pulses require huge amounts of energy, such as in a nuclear explosion. I'm sure they can create a less dramatic amount of energy for a short burst.

How does the energy requirement compare with lasers?

 

The difference between the drone gun and the electromagnetic is a lot of contrast.

The drone gun transmits a stronger signal than the one that controls the drone. The drone is usually programmed to land since it has a disconnect.

The emp effectively does the same thing to a larger area without explicitly aiming for a drone - it aims for an area containing a drone or many drones.

An emp or microwave pulse disrupts electronics by broadband shockwave. It doesn't just disconnect them; it eliminates their functionality at the circuit level. Many drones at once are effectively removed from threat and from drone inventory.

The real problem is they are a very inexpensive delivery for variable ordnance - whatever it can carry.

Lasers are very cheap to fire but rely on a complicated infrastructure. They can be expensive to build, shelter, and position especially if they will be logistically needed in areas where infrastructure does not exist or frontlines.

The benefits are actually substantial for emp/hpm. AI has the numbers for development both high, acquisition also high though more so for rapid target and fire laser systems.

The cost of firing both are quite low, especially compared to rocket and missile systems; drones - super cheap, missiles - not so.

Acquisition is not transparent, and independent development can be necessary if there is no state-bound vendor.

Costs to acquire both are high but so is the problem of just lots of damage without them.

The real bonus is the scalability - the emp/hpm systems are not 'much easier' to buy but they are much easier to position and implement.

 

The problem of collateral damage to non-enemy equipment is real - the pulse is indiscriminate in that way, and for that reason it changes a few things in strategy.

Emitters are directional and though their yield is volumetric, shielding gear behind them during assaults is realistic.

Also, the pulse that debilitates a simple drone shouldn't have the same effect on a radio system at the same range.

In bunkers or shelters or trenches or buildings there are materials that can be employed, but generally the collateral is foreseeable and thus controllable.

 

The energy use is comparable but it could be lower. The real benefit is the number but the range is likely very limited in comparison to lasers.

 

The energy use will be proportional to the volume of space to be affected and distance. A nuclear explosion would be needed to affect a much wider area.