The US Army is cutting back in this area. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, which was a small attack helicopter, has been cancelled.[1] If it flies low and slow over the enemy, it's going to be shot down. Better to send many drones and lose some of them.
The concept of tactical air superiority is now questionable. The USAF used to boast that American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since 1952. That era seems to be over. There are so many portable systems now that can take out an aircraft.
Jam-resistant drones are already a thing. Drones are going to have to be shot down one at a time. This is quite possible but the missiles to do it can cost more than the drones.
Dumb question: Why are 12ga shotguns, possibly on small auto-targeting platforms, not a thing yet? Like a CWIS/CRAM but tiny and for close-in engagements?
The problem with shotguns is that you either have a small number of pellets (12ga) or a small amount of mass to do damage (bird shot). So with 12ga specifically, while it's more effective than a rifle round -- the pellets spread quickly enough that it's only a huge advantage when the drone is in the terminal phase. This is why in WW2, they would put timed fuses inside the AA shells so that they didn't have to hit the aircraft directly with the shell but the round didn't spread so far that it was useless.
I hear you, and a prox shell would be ideal, but I have a hard time seeing the comparisons. The scale of attack drones is so small and fast and close, and the drones are very fragile. Perhaps the hand grenade "bomber" types can be far enough up, but the FPV impactor types are right up in your face and have to fly at you to be effective.
Look around and you can find tons of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers skeet shooting drones with various levels of success.
There are issues though. Skeet guns are 28-34" barrels which is super-long. These guns are also heavy. Once you have ammo loaded up, you're talking 11+ pounds. These guns size and weight make them almost unusable for anything outside of drones. Carrying around an extra gun and heavy ammo is a big commitment both physically and logistically.
Double-barreled sawed-off shotgun in Doom style. Anyway you may not have enough time to fire more, and save quite a bit on weight and maneuverability. Maybe some special longer shells with more pellets, any slight touch and those lightweight plastics break and drone goes down.
> I'm imagining a shoulder mounted auto-targeting pistol.
About a decade ago, DARPA developed a .50 caliber gun round that has onboard guidance.[1] They were thinking snipers, not anti-drone, but maybe the concept can be adapted.
An FPV can clear those 300 meters in 6 seconds. Maybe six seconds is enough for target identification, aiming, and firing, but it is a tight timeline for tracking an ~1kg object ~0.3km away.
The concept of tactical air superiority is now questionable. The USAF used to boast that American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since 1952. That era seems to be over. There are so many portable systems now that can take out an aircraft.
Jam-resistant drones are already a thing. Drones are going to have to be shot down one at a time. This is quite possible but the missiles to do it can cost more than the drones.
[1] https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02/08/us-army-spent-bil...