© 2024 New Atlas
Drones

US Army tests drone-killing 50 mm cannon

By David Szondy
October 12, 2015
US Army tests drone-killing 50 mm cannon
The operational concept behind the Enhanced Area Protection and Survivability technology is to have a 50 mm course-corrected projectile intercept an incoming threat
The operational concept behind the Enhanced Area Protection and Survivability technology is to have a 50 mm course-corrected projectile intercept an incoming threat
View 1 Image
The operational concept behind the Enhanced Area Protection and Survivability technology is to have a 50 mm course-corrected projectile intercept an incoming threat
1/1
The operational concept behind the Enhanced Area Protection and Survivability technology is to have a 50 mm course-corrected projectile intercept an incoming threat

While civilian countermeasures to combat malicious drones is moving toward UAV-freezing radio beams, the US Army is taking a more permanent approach. Under development by the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, the Enhanced Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) system used steerable 50 mm smart rounds to shoot down two drones in recent tests.

The Army says that EAPS is a gun-based alternative to the missile-based Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM) system currently favored by the US military. It was originally designed to counter rockets, artillery, and mortars (RAM), but due to the increasing threat from UAVs the system’s mission was expanded to include drones.

Using a 50 mm cannon, EAPS fires guided interceptor projectiles guided by a precision tracking radar interferometer and a fire control computer. The system tracks the projectile and the target and computes an ideal trajectory correction. A radio transceiver then beams an engagement "basket" at the target for the projectile to home in on. Thrusters on the projectile are used for course correction and as it nears the target a forward-fragmenting warhead with a tantalum-tungsten alloy liner detonates to deal with C-RAM targets, while steel body fragments take out unmanned drones.

"In order to minimize the electronics on board the interceptor and to make it cheaper, all the 'smarts' are basically done on the ground station," says Manfredi Luciano, project officer for the EAPS Army Technology Objective. "The computations are done on the ground, and the radio frequency sends the information up to the round."

On August 19, EAPS underwent final proof-of-principle demonstration tests at the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. During the test, it shot down two remotely piloted Outlaw class aircraft built by Griffon Aerospace at a range of 1 km (0.62 mi) and an altitude of 1,500 m (4,900 ft). This replicated the first EAPS shoot down of a loitering aircraft on April 22, but at 50 percent greater range.

According to Luciano, the technology developed for EAPS could one day be used in a newly configured Army or Navy tactical air defense system.

Source: US Army

Tags

DronesUAVSecurityUS Army
13 comments
David Szondy
David Szondy
David Szondy is a playwright, author and journalist based in Seattle, Washington. A retired field archaeologist and university lecturer, he has a background in the history of science, technology, and medicine with a particular emphasis on aerospace, military, and cybernetic subjects. In addition, he is the author of four award-winning plays, a novel, reviews, and a plethora of scholarly works ranging from industrial archaeology to law. David has worked as a feature writer for many international magazines and has been a feature writer for New Atlas since 2011.

Most Viewed

Load More
13 comments
Anne Ominous
Yeah... and it took a vehicle about as big as a standard tank to do it.
Unless it's blowing Predator drones out of the sky, pass on that.
Ralf Biernacki
what it boils down to is (total cost per projectile) * (projectiles per drone). If the resulting figure is significantly higher than the price of a drone, then a simple countermeasure would be to flood the sky with cheap decoy drones. . .

But they're at least aware of that problem. That's why they're trying to cut costs by using artillery rather than antimissiles, and ground-based computing.

Unfortunately, this means that the projectile itself has effectively become a drone. It has actuator surfaces and is ground-controlled. The only thing missing is a drive---the gun is supplying that. But is the cost of that vehicle, amortized on a per-shot basis, less than the cost of a drone engine and controller?

Now what if the drone has ECCM, jamming the projectile's control channel? The drone's transmitter is closer to the projectile, but has limited power. . . Is the cost of that ECCM worth putting it in?

This is an exercise in economics, more than in engineering and tactics.
michael_dowling
What happened to taking out drones with lasers? That would be ultra cheap per shot,and could likely handle multiple drones.
Jeff Goldstein
Sounds like the military has too much money to spend. They want to fire a burst of 10 exploding projectiles that are roughly 2.5 inches in diameter at one drone that is about 2/3 of a mile away. Where do all the misses and fragments go? They fall from the sky onto the troops they are protecting. Use a laser or just a radar aimed .50 caliber machine gun.
Firehawk70
The Outlaw class is a 275 lb plane with ~8 ft wingspan and a terribly obvious radar signature. What about a 16 inch, 2lb, 4/6 prop hovering UAV with a skeletal frame? If I were the enemy, as noted by Freederick, I'd just fill the sky with these $500 consumer grade devices -- far less $ when produced by hand, in bulk, by guys with a cause working for free. You can buy the parts and microcontrollers and build them for not much money. They could easily be programmed to follow GPS, and/or to just automatically do all kinds of maneuvers that would confound a simple tech like this.
There's no way that a steerable projectile costs anything less than about $5-10k each from a scamming defense contractor. Cheaper than a missile maybe, but not cheaper than dozens of consumer grade UAVs.
Perhaps a bigger question - Are we trying to get rid of surveillance UAVs or enemy weaponized drones? If the latter, then I guess my write-up is moot.
JustinRoney
Looks like someone at the U.S. Army has something against Piper Cubs.
aviatrix
With poor reputation our military has, the Piper Cub or Taylorcraft civilian aircraft shown above and being shot down probably wasn't the best example of a drone. Of course, our military will shoot at anything.
Bob Flint
2.5 inch diameter projectile at more than three per second to take on small rotor aircraft. Isn't that like shooting at flies with a cannon?
Maybe a wide spreading concussion device to take out hundreds at a time...
JDS
Oh great, something for our enemies to get hold of which will render all of OUR drones subject to being shot down! How many 'drones' do our enemies have? I haven't heard of any being used against us. Why fund this boondoggle at this time?
Frosted Flake
Isn't that CUTE!!!! Army thinks it can buy a new GUN!!!!
Load More