I bet this question came up before, but how feasible would trained birds of prey be against drones on the battlefield?

Considering the effort required to train birds of prey, it seems like a booby-trap type drone could easily counter this.

>>64027785 (OP)
It has already been dine and mostly abandoned already.

>>64027785 (OP)
It's been tried several times to down drones at events and sensitive locations (airports, military bases, nuclear plants...).
Answer is propellers injure the birds very often and training is too long and expensive to consider them single use.
Also, very few people have the skills to train birds, so hard to scale.
It does work though.

>>64027785 (OP)
Extremely feasible. Raptors are biologically wired to take small drones down. Practical? Requires a industry to make them viable. But then you get into issues of scalability. The Arabs like to use falcons to hunt with great effect but those birds are expensive as all because you can't breed and train them at economy of scale level. If the USG deliberately set up an entire industry to breed and train them and make falcon handler a local level position then it would work, and likely quite well. But then you'd get animal rights activists doing suicide bombings and attacking the handlers. And probably Journos paid off by competing CUAS solution CDCs attacking the whole idea as a bizarre waste of taxpayer moneys.

>>64027785 (OP)
not feasible, you will drive them to extinction

>>64027785 (OP)
They tried. Not only is falconry fucking hard, meaning every bird lost is not easily replaced, but they are still birds. Basically everything fucks them up

>>64027785 (OP)
The Ukes used some Falcons at the start but their footers get mangled up pretty bad from the props and drones are way too heavy and powerful now

>>64027785 (OP)
>but how feasible would trained birds of prey be against drones on the battlefield
Zero feasibility. Like everyone has said but more explicitly: literally the entire thing about drones is mass production scaling. While yeah, individual drone capabilities are going up, objectively speak the performance in general remains nothing special. What is special is having a dozen/hundreds/thousands/(soon) tens or hundreds of thousands at a time, and the increasing degree to which a single human can oversee a lot. It's the scaling, cheapness, and uniformity.

Birds of prey don't have that anymore than humans themselves.

They are using birds at airfields, so they can probably handle drones fine with some training. If they're not capable of doing it already.

>>64028727
pic related

>feasible
>battlefield
Zero. Why has this board become yahoo answers for people with 40IQ?

>>64028727
They're using those birds to kill other birds and control rodent/lagomorph populations.

To add to OP's question. What if we cloned pterosaurs and used them in place of falcons? Surely some are more durable than birds? And if not what if we gave them lightweight carbon fiber armour in sensitive areas? Think of the show Dino Riders as reference.

>>64028730
How do they see when the little crash helmets cover their eyes?

>>64027785 (OP)
>Foxhole? Drone?
>Trench? Drone?
>Net? Drone?
>Blimp? Drone?
>Birds of prey? Drone?
>Drone? Drone?

You don't have to turn every inane malformed fetus of a thought into a thread. Fucking STOP.

>>64029502
They are taken off when bird gets airborne. It's to keep it calm on ground.
>>64029018
Which is not much different than stupid mavic.

It's not feasible for the reason that drones exist in the first place. A bird trained to knock an FPV drone out of the sky is going to be a lot more expensive to raise and maintain than just spending 120 bucks on Temu.

>>64027974
>>64028640
Avian sabatons

Drone cage on a birb when