Comments by "Laird Cummings" (@lairdcummings9092) on "US Army Planning on Integrating Anti-Drone Lasers on New Squad Vehicles" video.

The original killer drones are Automobile Torpedoes. Programed before launch, autonomous after launch, and specifically intended to self navigate to their target via depth regulation and course maintenance features, the earliest torpedos were simple and crude, but still killer robots. Since the advent of homing torpedos in WWII, they've even become self-guiding. Automobile Torpedoes have been killing humans since the 19th Century. Anti-drone warfare is probably the "killer app" for lasers. Laser tech is powerful enough to down most drones, and more than sufficiently agile to track and engage even the most erratically-evading drone.
3
No. Range and response time issues make that not worth the trouble. Machine guns do not do well with frangible ammunition, and have very strictly limited range. Auto shotguns are far worse. Then, recall the footage of Baghdad in the Gulf Wars: great, wasteful hoses of fire sweeping across the sky trying - and failing - to hit full-sized aircraft. Even radar-guided autocannon have trouble scoring direct hits and still must carry loads of heavy ammunition, with limited range. Lasers are fast and precise to aim, the 'ammunition' comes as liquid fuel and arrives by tanker instead of great big cans that are 50% brass and propellant, and are very quiet and unlikely to generate any significant firing signature (which means limited counter-batter response.)
3
@megagamernick9883 planning for ideal terrain for your weapons is so early 20th Century.
2
Oh, and 'copter' drones don't have the lifting capacity for any useful countermeasures and their downdraft would automatically disperse any cloud or gaseous countermeasures, whilst winged drones move too fast to be protected by anti-laser measures - they literally leave the countermeasures behind.
1
@megagamernick9883 as an illustration, it hasn't changed much, except getting worse for gun systems. Iraq had modern AAA systems (for the day). There's much less footage of AAA gun systems in use in Putin's War, despite the HUGE volume of video coming out of that war, because the AAA gun is much less useful, portable, and less effective than MANPADS and larger SAMs. But spending a US$1M missile to blot out a $300K drone is inefficient, and using $100k MANPADS to pot a $100 hobby drone is even worse. Blazing away at a drone that's dinking about just out of range, and / or maneuvering sharply whilst laughing at your gunners' inability to swat the mosquito, is just ludicrous.
1
@JimmySailor 57mm towed and self-propelled gun mounts are a thing. They're not widely used any more, because they're no longer effective or efficient. If you MUST use a gun system, 35mm to 40mm is where the smart money is (See German SP AAA platforms). High volumes of fire, lots of ammo on board, quick tracking, useful warheads, etc. They're still not using them for drone hunting - they're expensive, fairly rare, and reserved for anti-aircraft defense of high value targets where drones would not be used.
1