Microdrone Spy Planes

glinden writes "BBC News is reporting that Israel is now deploying microdrone spy planes. These planes have a wingspan of 13 inches (33 cm), can be carried in a backpack, can be launched by a single soldier, and can even fly through windows. The next step in the drone wars?"

Comments

Fly through Windows?

[l810c]

Flying through windows is a very cool feature, but then what?

Snap a couple of pictures, turn on a dime then fly right back out?
Fly through the other open window on the other side of the building?

Fly through window, Then EXPLODE... Now That would be cool.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[airrage]

I have to agree that it sounds rather fishy. What happens if the window is in a hallway? They should make a helocopter one instead of a fixed-wing one. That way it could hover and enter windows, buildings, etc. Of course maybe it's hard to RC the collective as I think it's called?

Re:Fly through Windows?

[neilcSD]

I'd imagine this would be pretty simple without adding too much weight - set it up like a claymore, with a plastic/ball bearing lattice and a small amount of c4. They could even shape the charge so that the bearings came out the nose of the drone, limitting collatoral casualties and upping the kill probability. Very Bond-esque!

Re:Fly through Windows?

[avgjoe62]

Actually my favorite Doonesbury strip.

You get the camera view from the nose of a cruise missile as it flies through one of Saddam's bunkers, showing lots of Iraqi soldiers scrambling out of the way as the missile negotiates hallways, doors, stairwells, bathrooms and then flies out a window and explodes in a school down the street.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[Simonetta]

Fly through window, Then EXPLODE... Now That would be cool.

This is probably what the little plane will eventually be used for. An ounce of Cemtex plastic explosive surrounded by very hard plastic that rips apart skin, burrows deeply, and can't be detected by X-rays (Rhetegen sp? rays) enclosed on a little plane. Or the little plane can be the device sending guidance information to a larger missle. Another nasty assassination tool.

So what's so 'cool' about this kind of murder? Are you some kind of death freak? Or just another silly American suburban child-man who has been shielded from all possible exposure to real blood and evil except for ultra-violent movies and video games.

Murder is not 'cool', dude.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[Matthew Schultheis]

Actually, exploding wouldn't be such bad idea as it wouldn't give the enemy any information about the plane itself.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[pilgrim23]

I rememebr seeing a Discovery Channel special on the show WINGS some (10) years ago on Israeli drones. What I recall was that they were building theirs for a few hundred dollars out of existing model airplane parts and off the shelf camera/ radio tech. Contrasting this was the US Navy, also working on a drone program. The Navy effort used millions of dollars, thousands of hours of committee meetings, 6 case stduies and postion papers developed by Beltway Bandits, and was a complete and total failure

Re:Fly through Windows?

[BJZQ8]

Been done. The version at this link... Link Comes with fixed pitch, but can be upgraded to full collective (he's talking about collective pitch on a helicopter blade, not the Borg you Star Trek watching clod.) These things can do wild aerobatics, inverted flight, whatever you want. Putting a GPS receiver on it might be a bit of a challenge, as they will hardly lift anything...I imagine they could carry a grenade, too though.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of Course it is designed to Explode, and to destroy the entire family - Dad, Mom, Grandma, Grandpa, the kids, etc. It is also designed to turn anyone who survives into a person dedicated to revenge upon the people who support the military which directed the thing into the living room in the first place. What a wonderful weapon to advance state-driven terrorism and take us all one more step away from any home we'll ever live in a peaceful world!

And you get 4 points for being funny... What a sick bunch of bastards!

Re:Fly through Windows?

[Simonetta]

Killing of military targets is not murder,dude

Sorry, I have to disagree with this one. It's a new century and we can no longer pretend that murder is not murder by arbitrarily classifing the victims as acceptable military targets. There will never be world peace until solders accept that what they do is murder. I no longer accept that there is any difference between civilian murder and military murder. There are other ways of dealing with political situations; it's just that murder is the usually the fastest, cheapest, and easiest.
But let's not pretend any more that this is not was it actually is. Killing people is murder, and wrapping the act in military metaphors is just a way to do and feel good about it afterwards.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[JaredOfEuropa]

I got one of them... an extremely cool toy! But even with a beefed-up motor and battery pack, the range will be very limited and power will certainly not be sufficient to carry a serious explosive device.

The only ones you'll terrorise with this thing is your cats! Mine hate it, they hide when I fly it indoors :)

But

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they fit a midget in there?!

Re:But

[Ilan Volow]

Fitting a midget in a model airplane? That's ridiculous and implausible.

Such a system would actually employ something like a gerbil and an excersise wheel.

Dig that propeller!

[The I Shing]

I'm glad I'm not an Israeli soldier... I'd be worried about over-winding the propeller and breaking the rubber band, or cutting my finger on the thing.

All joking aside, those things would be hot sellers here in the USA.

Ever wonder what's going on behind the ten-foot-high stone walls of that rich dude's house on the corner? Why, just sent your drone flying overhead.

Police departments would dig those things, too, and so would rescue units.

And don't get me started on what the tabloid paparazzi could do with those things.

Re:Dig that propeller!

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

You can get one pretty easily.
http://www.rcmodels.com/airplanes-toy-rc-airplanes .html

The one in the picture even looks sort of the same.

Re:Dig that propeller!

[ch-chuck]

what's going on behind the ten-foot-high stone walls of that rich dude's house

only until he deploys the manually operated ground-to-air rapidly re-targetable kinetic dispersion-projectile defense system (old fashioned shotgun).

Re:Dig that propeller!

[Cruciform]

Pick up the latest RC mags and you'll see some very similar devices. Flight times are shorter, but they're improving all the time. Micro-servos and stronger, lighter pushrods are allowing fine control with even the smallest planes.
Wind is definitely a problem with these devices, but if you had a swarm of them and some skilled pilots you could do a lot of damage via intelligence collection or bomb/poison attack.

Re:Dig that propeller!

[allyourbasebelongtou]

Real benefit would come to rescue and disaster recovery units if these babies could be controlled (or at least monitored) via satellite--or even something more remote than a laptop within 5K as the article suggests.

Imagine what could be done in a remote disaster situation in any region--even a metropolitan area--just by being able to fly low and into and around hard-to-reach areas.

Sure, while in this instance it's being used by soldiers, your point about rescue units, etc. is an idea I hope takes hold.

Still no jetpacks?

[bangular]

They can make this but they still can't make me a decent jetpack? I'm begining to think we will never get our flying shark we were promised

Sounds like

[slycer9]

Model planes to me. Had one when I was a kid.

Fit in backpack. Was a little over a foot wide. Flew it into a window once...oh wait......

Very clever

[ackthpt]

While I'm postive this will lead to heated debate, flames and trolls regarding the situation in Palestine. I think it's very clever and resourceful to develop inexpensive methods of reconnaissance. But as these things buzz around they'd be hard to overlook. Maybe the next time the Israeli Army assasinates a palistinian they can do it with a poison needle or dart on one of these things instead of firing air-to-ground missiles. What's to stop the palestinians from doing likewise?

Preferably they'd eliminate the need for such things by reigning in their own hardline elements demands and work toward peace.

No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.

Re:Very clever

[eyeye]

What's to stop the palestinians from doing likewise?

Hey if you gave the Palestinians billions of US$ a year in military aid maybe they would.

Then they wouldn't have to "manually" deliver the bombs either.

Re:Very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Preferably they'd eliminate the need for such things by reigning in their own hardline elements demands and work toward peace.

That's a good one. Ask yourself these questions:

What would happen if tomorrow the Palestinians said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."

Most people I ask say that a peace treaty would be signed.

What would happen if tomorrow the Israelis said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."

Most people I ask say that the Palestinians will kill all the Israelis.

Why are these answers different? Discuss, compare & contrast.

Re:Very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start too much of a flame war, but I think that there is a lot of myths flying around regarding Israel. I will restrain myself from ranting, but want to steer your attention to this website [www.us-israel.org] full of facts, WITH SOURCES. Take some time and become educated.

Re:Very clever

[mi]

Hey if you gave the Palestinians billions of US$ a year in military aid maybe they would.

This weapon, as well as Israel's famous gun (Uzi), and their tanks are of their own design.

Palestinians got a lot more than "military aid" in the past -- they got entire armies fighting for -- so it was claimed -- their cause. Israel's very existence hung on a hair against _hundreds_ of Egyptian and Syrian tanks.

Finally, the world certainly gives to Palestinians too -- food, medicine, buildings. Soviet Union and Arab nations were/are providing weapons and ammunition. As far as their weapon design -- well, adding chipped nails and bearing balls to the bombs for maximum maiming was quite an idea, was not it?

Re:Very clever

[Killswitch1968]

Dear lord. People accuse of Sharon of being cruel, but nothing outmatches the sheer barbarism of terrorist groups. At least Sharon tries to attack military targets, and doesn't ask 14 years old to blow themselves to pieces by saying they'll go to heaven when they do.

Re:Very clever

[WNight]

You are so terribly uninformed. The area occupied by Israel was largely unoccupied before the late 1800s and early 1900s when Jewish settlers started moving into the area. In the beginning they were quite popular - despite the long-lasting anti-semitism of many Muslims they brought industry and prosperity to the area. Moreso, they let the Arabs in the area be full citizens in Israel when it formed - Israel is currently the only democracy in the area. Ironically the Arab in the area have more political freedom in Israel than in the surrounding countries. Further, modern Israel is secular - there are many Jews, but the political structure isn't religious unlike in most of the surrounding countries.

When Israel was formed it was the largest single group of Jews in the world and its creation was merely a matter of the British setting borders in the area to best represent the political/racial groups. Most of the Arab countries in the area have no more historical right than Israel does.

Then consider the tactics. The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The israelis intentionally target known terrorists, often passing up a chance at assasinating them until they're not surrounded by civilians. The Muslims intentionally try to kill the innocent - the Israelis do so only by accident.

Israel has gone out of their way to be fair, even going so far as to give back land taken during a defensive war. Ask yourself what any other country would do if in the process of defending itself in a war it pushed the enemy back and captured land. Would they give it back later, or keep it as just spoils of war? There's very little historical precedent for giving territory back to the agressors, yet Israel did this. The countries surrounding them easily have enough territory to take in the Palestinians and this has been proposed by people looking for peaceful solutions for years, but the Palestinians are left where they are. It just goes to show that the Muslims in the area aren't united by the fight for Palestinian freedom, they're united by religious hatred for Jews and the Palestinians are being used as pawns.

One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets. The other group is religious, a theocracy (in practice, not on paper), racist, homophobic, etc, and intentionally targets civilians. Who really is the bad guy in this scenario?

Re:Very clever

[Mr. Slippery]

The area occupied by Israel was largely unoccupied before the late 1800s and early 1900s when Jewish settlers started moving into the area.

Completely incorrect. The inconvenient fact that there were all these people already there is why the Zionists had to engage in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in 1948, and why the "right to return" has been an issue.

When Israel was formed it was the largest single group of Jews in the world and its creation was merely a matter of the British setting borders in the area to best represent the political/racial groups.

Let's get the history straight. At the end of WWI, with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain. The British double-crossed the Arab population living there and made the Balfour Declaration, commiting Britian to the establishment of Jewish homeland in Palestine. (As with current U.S. support, the primary motivation was strategic interests in the area.)

In the early 20th century there were around 50,000 Jewish settlers living in the region, constituting perhaps 10% of the population. The remaining 90% of the population was, oddly enough. not very pleased at having foreign colonial powers come in and take over. (It should be noted that before WWI, the Jews and Arabs in the region got along reasonably peacefully. It was Zionists outside Palestine who worked for the Balfour Declaration.)

During the 1920s, thanks to British policies about 100,000 Jewish immigrants arrived - a substantial number in a region with a population of about 750,000. The Jewish population more than doubled, rising to over 17%, and tensions began to rise.

In the 1930s, the Nazis began their reign of terror, and many Jews who escaped came to Palestine. By 1939 the Jewish population was over 445,000, out of a total of about 1,500,000 - nearly 30 per cent. By 1947, the total population of Palestine was 1,850,000, including 608,000 Jews.

The large Jewish population in the region at the time of the parition was only the result of decades of concerted effort by the British and by Zionist organizations.

The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace. -- Arnold J. Toynbee, 1968

It's a very popular myth that there was this vast empty space on the map that the Jewish refugees from WWII could occupy. The truth is that there were plenty of people aready living there, getting screwed over by the British Empire's form of Zionism.

(And indeed, the Jews have been victims in this too, a reasonable desire for a homeland twisted and warped by British and American politics, so that instead of slowly and peacefully building a independant nation, today the "Jewish homeland" is an unsustainable enterprise, existing only because of the support of the United States.)

One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets.

Israel is Jewish state. Orthodox Judaism is the only legally recognized form of Judaism, and has considerable authority, with control over marriages, burials, and decisions over "who's a Jew". It takes great twisting of the language to regard that as secular.

It takes greater twisting to re

Re:Very clever

[Chacham]

Furthermore, to label anyone who critises the state of Israel in any way as anti-semitic (which seems to be getting increasingly common) is a really good way to weaken the word anti-semitic.

Actually, Israel is criticized mostly for non-rational reasons. Some are anti-semitic, some are a feeling for the Arabs. The latter is many times labeled anti-semitic as well. The reasoning, according to those who apply this label, is that for those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong. As such, anyone who sides with them and believes their lies, is "obviously" doing it for anti-semetic reasons.

This goes one more step though. There is much propoganda throughout the Arab world. Many lies, and much distortion of fact. The Elders of Zion is best seller there, cartoons constantly depict Israeli's as killing Arabs for fun, statistics are abused, and the like. The main reason is the various dictators are anti-semetic, and the closed press is allowed to print only their views.

The non-Arab media tends to take the Arab's point of view. Their opinions are treated as fact, yet official Israeli statements are somewhat disqualified by the wording introducing it. This is then taken as being anti-semetic.

Traditional Judaism has a rule. If all judges in a death-penalty judgements believe the victim is guilty of death, the penalty is not applied. This is because something is amiss, as it can't be that noone found some merit. This is the case with the world. The whole world condemns Israel. If noone can find merit, there is something amiss. Compare it to the Nazis. There are *still* people who stand on their side. So how can it be that *everyone* is against Israel?

Because of all this, the word anti-Semetic is appropriate. It is not a dilution. Rather, it is a statement of reality, that just happens to be against the comfortable postition assumed by all.

Tomorrow's Scout

[American AC in Paris]

Standard issue:

One (1) pair binoculars
One (1) pair night-vision goggles
One (1) Field emergency medical kit
One (1) M-4 rifle
Eighty (80) rounds 5.56 x 45mm NATO ammuniton
Ten (10) Meals Ready-to-eat
One (1) Mosquito micro-UAV
Ten (10) 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands

Re:Tomorrow's Scout

[Kenja]

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency raisons; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Ten 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Re:Tomorrow's Scout

[Tackhead]

> One (1) pair binoculars
>One (1) pair night-vision goggles
> One (1) Field emergency medical kit
> One (1) M-4 rifle
> Eighty (80) rounds 5.56 x 45mm NATO ammuniton
>Ten (10) Meals Ready-to-eat
>One (1) Mosquito micro-UAV
> Ten (10) 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands

Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with that!

Better killers

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

This will most certainly be used in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine. The last thing I want to see is either of those two groups become more efficient killers.

This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.

Re:Better killers

[Jim_Maryland]

I can see where someone will arm it with a poison dart.

Re:Better killers

[GuyMannDude]

This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.

The two tend to be linked at the hip. There is considerable interest in the military to develop means of preventing civilian casualties or collateral damage. And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would. The type of WWII war where massive civilian casualties are accepted so long as you kill lots of enemy combatants are long gone. Third, increased intelligence will help you refine a priori assumptions you made about the enemy's tactics. If you are planning on destroying a building you believe to be an enemy command center but then receive intelligence that it's actually a homeless shelter, that's more valuable than just noting that it's a non-target. It tells you that you really don't know where the hell the command center really is! And it also makes you pause and question the quality of the pre-battle intelligence that labeled it as enemy headquarters.

Spy planes are here to stay and they will play a more important role in the conflicts to come. And I don't think you can separate their capabilities into "prevent violence" and "enable violence" bins. Those two qualities tend to be one and the same.

GMD

Re:Better killers

[Otter]

And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would.

Absolutely. Whatever your views on the practice of targeting terrorist leaders (if you want to debate this point, there are other people in this thread happy to do it -- please go flame them instead of me), certainly killing bystanders or the wrong people altogether is entirely counterproductive.

This device described here is non-lethal and intended just for surveillance, but people following the news will note that far fewer bystanders are being killed recently than in similar hits in past years. The reason supposedly is a change from Hellfire missiles (or those insane attacks with large bombs that seemed to kill everyone but the intended target) to some semi-secret device with live video feedback that can be aborted at the last second.

But I agree with the original poster's sentiment -- at best you're going from hideous to just awful. Hopefully someday all this effort and creativity will be entirely channeled into positive things.

Re:Better killers

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

That is the same retarded logic used in banning non-lethal, although permanent injury causing weapons like laser dazzler's and other high-tech weaponry.

What retarded logic? All I said was this will be used in the current conflict, and that it has both positive and negative potential.

I must not be getting your point, because I agree that it is better to disable a soldier than to kill them... at least it is an option.

On a less human note, it is occasionally more desirable to wound than kill. For instance, in the civil war many generals told their soldiers to inflict non-lethal wounds. It wasn't out of brotherly love, but the fact that a wounded soldier takes one or two good soldiers to drag him off the field to the medic tent. That means you removed three men from the fighting with one shot.

Re:Better killers

[superyooser]

at least "Palestine" has a distinguishable population

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It has also been a 'conceptual' war for the ownership of the term 'Palestinian' which has been transferred over to the Arabs, whereas before 1967, 'Palestine' has always been synonymous with the land of Israel."

- Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee member, to Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977

Re:Better killers

[chris_mahan]

> Even if you don't think they're a country with a government, the collective people can still be referred to as Palestine, and everyone will know who you're talking about.

like Tibet?

Re:Better killers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. From the people who invented the Uzi, an indiscriminate killing machine- the closest you can get to the gun equivalent of a nuclear weapon- you don't pick your targets with an Uzi, you pick your areas.

Man, you're an idiot. Israel didn't invent automatic weapons. By any measure, the Heckler & Koch MP5 is a better submachine gun than the Uzi, and that was invented by the peace-loving Swiss.

Gun-equivalent to a nuke? I'm sure the vulcan cannons are much more powerful than an uzi.

It's be nice if people stopped and remembered a few basic facts. #1, Palestinians were there first.

No, they weren't. Jews have been there for many thousands of years. Arabs didn't migrate out of Arabia until recently (1600 years or so).

#2, Palestinians have rocks; Israelis have gunship helicopters, fighter jets, tanks, RPGs, and nuclear weapons; compare the body counts from the palestinian bombings with the multiple retaliation strikes and note that the ratio is just a tad imbalanced.

The Israelis have a well trained military. The Palestinians do not. And even when other Arab nations with real militaries attacked Israel in the many Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs got their asses kicked, with far more Arab casulties than Israelis.

#3, you see terrorists- I see people fenced into ghetto prisons, whose basic resources(such as water) have been redirected out of the land they've been squeezed into, so desperate to protect their homes they're willing to strap bombs to themselves because they have no other means left to defend themselves.

Terrorists are those who delibrately attack civilians. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Whereas most Palestinians would probably be happy to have their land back and move on to living- Israel won't be satisfied until they've pushed Palestinians completely out of the way, or exterminated them.

Riiight. Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances. Don't believe me, go ask Hamas.

They're doing a damn fine job at both. They've stripped land, resources, and property to satisfy the needs of their own population, who are somehow better than the people that were there already.

Riiight. If the best military in the middle east wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, there would be millions of dead Palestinians next month, and the conflict would be over. But they don't, because that isn't the Israeli goal. You forget that when the UN created the modern state of Israel, it also created a Palestinian state. THIS WAS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE ARABS, AND THEY CHOSE THE PATH OF WAR. And lost.

Re:Better killers

[mi]

The last thing I want to see is either of those two groups become more efficient killers.

You are wrong on two counts. First, the precise killing is a better killing, because a precise weapon reduces collateral damage -- the children, with which Rantissi and the like surround themselves in public suddenly become exposed to less risk.

Likewise Baghdad is still standing -- unlike some major German cities shortly after WWII -- because the precision of the bombing improved so much.

Second, you imply, that the two sides are somehow "equal". They are not. While Hamas and other "brigades" target civilians, Israel only targets its sworn enemies, who actively work on killing Israelis -- and it usually tries to arrest them first. True, sometimes innocent civilians die as the result of the Israel's actions, but they are never the intended targets...

Now, let's see some troll-heavy "moderation"...

Re:Better killers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I've heard this said before. The palestinians are not a nation and there was never a nation "Palestine". So what? There are millions of arabs who live in the "occupied territories", most of whose families have lived there or in Israel proper (from whence they fled and now live as refugees) for many generations.

Israel should either absorb them into their country or find a two state solution. Saying "these people are not a nation, so they can go live in an Arab country and leave us their land" is not a realistic solution.

Re:Better killers

[Desert Raven]

NATO soldiers are not allowed to use shotguns, hollowpoint bullets, or anti-personnel lasers, because, perversely, they might leave the target alive. The 5.56mm rounds fired from an M16 are required to be jacketed to reduce their chance of tearing off an arm or leg, making nonlethal injuries more treatable.

Um, wrong.

First, shotguns *are* currently used by military security patrols. They're not used by field troops because of the extremely short range. In WWI, they were used in trench warfare.

Second, hollowpoints are *more* destructive, not less. Solid rounds tend to punch through, damaging only those things directly in path, and many times imparting only a fraction of their energy into the target. Hollow points #1 expand to a wider path, and #2 impart more of their energy (usually all of it) into the target, due to the greater surface area. This causes far greater damage.

As for 5.56 mm rounds being required to be jacketed, actually, *all* small-arms rounds are required to be jacketed, from long before the 5.56 was even on the drawing board. (Pre-dates the Geneva convention.) The 5.56mm is most dangerous due to the incredible *velocity* (up to 3,200fps) it carries. When hitting a solid body, a hypersonic shock wave follows the projectile, creating damage far removed from the actual path of the projectile. A hit in the thigh has been known to cause thrombosis of the major arteries well up into the abdomen and chest. (Fluids transmit shock waves *very* efficiently.) Also, that same hit, in the meat of the thigh, where the projectile itself never impacted the bone, can easily pulverize the femur, from the shock waves alone.

No comment on the lasers, that's out of my area of expertise.

And yes, I *have* taken several courses on wound ballistics.

Re:Better killers

[BgJonson79]

According to a book I read (posting from work, book at home, take with large grain of salt), most of the land (85%?) was owned by absentee landlords in Turkey.

However, I agree. If Israel would stop using the wall idea to grab land and the Palestinians would stop blowing themselves up, maybe they could accomplish something.

Microsoft Spy Planes

[neko9]

*clears glasses* *looks again at the screen* i think thats enough of slashdot for me today...

Re:Microsoft Spy Planes

[Boglin]

Hey, the article did say that it went through Windows.

Nothing new

[baudilus]

Anyone with TechTV knows that these things have been around for quite some time (employed by the U.S. army). They say that they don't carry destructive payloads, just cameras and the like. The real question is, did they develop these models themselves or buy them from a U.S. company?

3 mile range!

[planckscale]

That's pretty good range for those guys. I could use those to remotely check the surf at the beach from my office!

obligatory /. jokes

[jointm1k]

and can even fly through windows

Yeah, but can it fly through Linux?

The next step in the drone wars?

Begun this drone war has!

can be carried in a backpack

In Soviet Russia, planes carry YOU!

Yeah, I know. my humour sucks.

a simpler time

[BorgCopyeditor]

Skywalker: "You fought in the drone wars?"

In the future...

[SmackCrackandPot]

will we have 'spider' like cameras that can crawl along the ground and hide under rocks.

Will we have 'hawk' or 'eagle' gliders that attempt to take out these reconaissance gliders?

Just like in DUNE

[Capt'n Hector]

These look more like personal assassination drones than surveillance equipment. Visions of DUNE come to mind...

I'd like to see...

[rthille]

the remote cockroach that they had here. Of course, it ended up squashed by a shoe, but before that it got critical intel out. Just imagine a battlefield where you can't trust that the spiders and snakes, or arctic hares aren't working for the other guys!

More (related info)

[cetan]

Check out the Scientific American Frontiers episode on flight: Flying Free (2001)

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1109/index.html

There's a lot of cool stuff related to similar projects.

we all know...

[v_1_r_u_5]

some bored geek designed the microdrones to spy on the hot chics in those apartment complexes and then had to give it up to the military when he was caught.

hm

[EMH_Mark3]

So what? Lots of spyware can be flown through Windows nowadays.

*rimshot*

More information from PBS...

[Foggiano]

NOVA ran a show a few months ago about the development and deployment of unmanned military aircraft. They have some interesting items here.

Grenade

[kefoo]

How long before somebody loads one of these with explosives and turns it into a guided grenade? It could be useful as a weapon against a small target of opportunity that doesn't merit a bomb run or cruise missile strike, as well as keeping the soldiers out of immediate harm's way.

Seriously though, there is no need to fly out

[blorg]

All the drones can fly for an hour while transmitting pictures back to their operators

Ah, more US Tech...

[Vthornheart]

I heard about this technology back in 1999, I had done a report on the unexposed spy technology of the United States. Those little buggers that they were holding in the picture closely resemble a prototype picture that I had found of the exact same kind of idea, being developed by US forces at that time.

The wingspan was similar (about 15 inches, if I remember correctly), and could be controlled remotely. A color video camera and microphone on the "plane" would record any needed information.

Another case of information sharing it seems. It's been about 5 years since I did that report, but I'll see if I can dig it up from the archives of my computer for the purposes of this conversation.

Resources

[Trillian_Angel]

I still wonder a bit at how much money goes into these things, as well as man hours. I can see their uses as survelliance, but would those resources be better used elsewhere? ... a lot of resources would be better used if people didn't suck and have to fight amongst themselves all of the time, though. So, in that case, whats a little plane?

I'd like to own one, personally, but I just love playing with rockets and planes.

As someone mentioned before, using these devices for rescue personel would be very cool. I think a little robotic snake of somesort would be more efficient in rubble, but for overhead rescues to locate crashes, it would work.

Its a shame people don't come up for this stuff for rescue and other more beneficial things, then converted it to "war" types. But I suppose if you took away the wars, there wouldn't be quite so many people that needed rescued in the first place.

But there'd still be too many.

GTA Vice City

[CharAznable]

I guess someone at the Israeli army was playing the mission where you fly the rc chopper into the construction site...

Related Link

[Your_Mom]

For those of you who, like me, are fascinated by these things, check out The UAV forum lotsa neat discussion, information, and links.

Not Collective

[Anonymous Coward]

Collective?

I think you mean "kibbutz".

Re:Not Collective

[airrage]

That's good, but too high-brow for this crowd. They'll never get the Borg/Hebrew Communal farming reference. Suggest not posting again.

Problem in plane

[g0bshiTe]

As an avid R/C pilot for many years. I don't think using an aircraft with a 13 inch wingspan is going to do much good. These planes are extremely suceptable to wind. I have a 1/2a pilon racer with a 24" wingspan and an .049 engine. It can only be flown when the wind is less than 15 mph. In a place where mountains, hills and thermals abound I doubt their plane will be much use.

Btw the 1/2a racer has been clocked at over 90 mph. These things scream.

72 Virgins

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Not to be a political provocateur, but with what Israel has been up to the last few years, I'm sure that's exactly what they will do...

As opposed to what? Strapping it to some poor 10 or 15 year old kid who thinks he's soon going to be having his way with 72 virgins?

Re:72 Virgins

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

How is it "anti-Palestinian" to suggest there is something wrong with human bombs?

Re:72 Virgins

[pegr]

Not to be a political provocateur, but with what Israel has been up to the last few years, I'm sure that's exactly what they will do...

As opposed to what? Strapping it to some poor 10 or 15 year old kid who thinks he's soon going to be having his way with 72 virgins?

Yes. That's exactly correct. And until the Palestinian masses get it through their thick, religiously-warped, uneducated minds that they are sacrificing their youth, freedom, and future for the political squabblings of rich, power-mad immoral thugs (on BOTH sides...), this kind of thing will continue until they are all DEAD! But of course, I don't want to be a political provocateur...

Re:72 Virgins

[Hektor_Troy]

And how do you know that the 72 virgins bullshit is in fact bullshit? Were you by any chance a martyr in your previous life?

They have their belief in one invisible man, we in another - let the two invisible guys (who are in fact the same guy) duke it out on Pay Per View and not in the streets. Please.

Religion ought to be banned outright planet wide!

Re:72 Virgins

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

And how do you know that the 72 virgins bullshit is in fact bullshit?

Even if it is true, do you suppose that makes the human bomb any more justifiable?

Re:72 Virgins

[Hektor_Troy]

Nope.

BUT - assuming it is true, then it would be because some supreme being finds it justifiable, presumably/hopefully because he/she/it/they can see a bigger picture than we can.

You and I may not like it, but any supreme being would be a better judge than you and I. And who knows - maybe the people who get blown up get 144 virgins/whatever for being another kind of martyr?

We don't know, and we CAN'T know. Maybe there are supreme beings, maybe there aren't. Personally I think the notion of doing the bidding of invisible beings is tantamount to insanity, not to mention stupidity if you haven't actually talked to these invisible beings yourself, but are just going on what other people tell you.

But that's just me.

Re:72 Virgins

[CrankyFool]

There is, technically speaking, no moral or ethical reason why human bombs (AKA suicide bombers) are a Bad Thing[tm]. Remember, we saw an instance of this in WWII with the Japanese Kamikaze.

It is usually going to be easier to breach defenses one-way than to go in, hit the enemy, and leave. Arriving with the intent of blowing up frees you to focus on the task rather than be distracted by 'misguided' attempts to survive the execution of it.

Where it gets less great is when you do one of two things:
1. Not clearly identify yourself as a hostile target, causing the other side to naturally suspect EVEYRONE on your side and probably qualifying you as an unlawful combatant (the Law of Armed Conflict requires distinctive markings); or (much more seriously)
2. Target civilians, which is when you become not just a weapon, but a terrorist weapon.

There's no fundamental difference between a Palestinian wearing a uniform and a bomb blowing themselves up with a bunch of soldiers and, say, a US soldier storming a Japanese pillbox with a grenade knowing he's going to die. The issue is whether or not he's clearly marked and, more importantly, whether he's attacking soldiers on duty or civilians.

Re:72 Virgins

[Rei]

Which is more realistic: That the world's 4th largest nuclear power (Israel) will be wiped off the map, or that the nation that it occupies, which has almost 80% of its land officially taken, and has siezed for settlements and security buffers 75% of the rest, and has half its populaton with chronic malnutrition will be wiped off the map?

Think about it for a second. Who is taking whose land? I'm not talking about the past: I'm talking about the present.

Re:72 Virgins

[stephanruby]

I wonder in which category you would put a clearly marked Tomahawk missile hurling at 550 MPH and traveling at a very low altitude so that noone sees it coming. And how about all the American ex-military "civilians" stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the House of Saud? Would you qualify those guys as terrorists if their participation went above and beyond training, but if they were actually found to have participated in black ops and unofficial clean-up operations within Saudi Arabia?

Flying thru Windows?

[rsd]

I wonder how long before it is hacked to fly thru Linux and Mac os X?

reat, now there will be another hobby that will..

[Tran]

become illegal. Can't have gun control in this country, but I can see now that the abilty to control model airplanes will be viewed viewed as anti-government and therefore severley restricted. Or it will put you on the watch list...

What about married people?

[fmaxwell]

These planes have a wingspan of 13 inches (33 cm)...can be launched by a single soldier

It must suck to be married. You can't even play with toy airplanes anymore.

This is nothing special....

[Anonymous Coward]

A few people have pointed out that this thing looks like a model airplane. Thats because it is. The body structure is directly copied from the RC modeling world.

The reason this model airplane technology is seeing millitary applications is because of two technologies.

1) li-poly batterys. Very light and has a high energy density.

2) Brushless motors. These are far and away more efficient than the older technology brushed motors. They also happen to be dead silent in the air - the only noise you can hear comes from the prop.

Electic flight has finally matured in the last two years. Flight times have gone from 5-8 min just a few years ago to todays hour plus flight times (put a couple li-poly packs in parallel and your good to go.

batteries can be had here:
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/kokam.htm

off the shelf planes can be bought here:
www.gws.com.tw
www.hobby-lobby.com/

discussion fourums here:
www.rcgroups.com/

Re:War is part of humanity

[Otter]

Oh, on that scale I completely agree. There's an ongoing stream of celebrities arriving in Jerusalem to hold forth on how the region's problams should be solved (unfortunately, the promised Jennifer Anniston-Brad Pitt peace plan seems to have been shelved indefinitely). But Richard Gere, whom I'd always thought of as a dilettante bonehead, gave a very humble, perceptive, gracious speech about how conflict is a part of humanity and it's necessary to keep it in its place by making the most of all the best aspects of humanity.

My point was limited to this particular conflict. You have on one side what is probably the most technologically productive society per capita in the world (except maybe Taiwan) despite the enormous resources it pours into defense and on the other side, an overwhelmingly young population. It's an incredible waste (even before you get to this week's innovation of using a retarded child as a suicide bomber) that is going to be resolved sooner or later, but sooner would be far preferable.

Cooler than my firebird..

[-tji]

There are slightly larger, but similar in concept, planes available in hobby shops. Such as this Firebird II.

Based on my experience flying that, I'm skeptical about a few things:
- Flying conditions: The Firebird is quite a bit larger than that plane, but any winds above 5-10MPH or so make it difficult to control. That little plane would get tossed around even easier.
- Duration: One hour flight time would be excellent, but with something so tiny I'm not sure how they pack that much battery power. My firebird is lucy to get 10 minutes of flying time before a recharge.
- Flying through windows? - That seems unlikely with one of these units. That level of accuracy is very difficult, and at the speeds you need to keep it flying, you would not have much time to maneuver this thing. Also, in the article they describe plotting a destination on a map - like a GPS controlled craft. How the hell would you fly through windows in that scenario.

Anyway, the hobby store variety of these things are a blast.. I highly recommend picking a couple up ( a couple because you're sure to crater it several times when first learning ).

Russians use something like this, too

[melted]

Russians use something like this, too, against Chechen insurgents (calling them "rebels" is fundamentally wrong). Their drone is called "Pchela" it's quite a bit bigger and requires at least two soldiers to launch (from what I've seen on TV).

Here's some info:
A Pchela (remotely piloted reconnaissance drone that provides television surveillance of ground targets) weighs 130 kilograms (loaded), has an operational range of 110 to 150 kilometers, can fly at altitudes ranging from 100 meters to 3 kilometers, and cruises at speeds from 11- to 150 kilometers an hour. Combat-recorded range: 55 kilometers. Its flight endurance is 2 hours (it needs 20 liters of gasoline for this). Its power plant is piston plus two solid rockets takeoff boosters (power at 32hp). Onboard of the Russian drone are a video camera, a still camera, a mapping camera, and a secure radio. It uses a parachute for landing. Pchela is probably equal in capability to many Western UAV in the same class. However, it is a slower, tactical unmanned aerial vehicle than, for example, the Russian the 800-kilometer-per-hour Reis UAV.

More info available at:
http://ufo.psu.ru/eng/dagestan.html

Asymmetric situations.

[Draxinusom]

I don't believe that the Palestinians' tactic of murdering civilians is ever justified in any circumstance, and in general I find myself to the right of the people I know on this subject; I would call myself "pro-Israel." Nevertheless, the basic fact is that Israel is the occupier, "Palestine" is the occupied. Even Ariel Sharon has acknowledged this. They don't call them "the occupied terroritories" for nothing. I daresay the Israelis would be more than happy to sign a peace treaty right now, considering that they are currently in possession of the land that is in dispute.

Regarding the grandparent post, there's no need for anything as baroque as poison darts. Sheik Ahmed Yassin was killed by Hellfire missiles launched by an Apache. Hellfires are laser-guided, so there was either an IDF soldier on the scene or a remote drone like the one in the article. It's easy to imagine the Apache being replaced by a highflying Predator or other unmanned craft, with target designation being performed by a drone. Gregg Easterbrook blogged about this today.

Re:Asymmetric situations.

[superyooser]

the basic fact is that Israel is the occupier, "Palestine" is the occupied.

According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel. The following was reported in Arutz-7 on March 18:

"Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not 'occupied territories' according to international law due to the fact that they were not taken from any foreign sovereign," says Law Professor Talia Einhorn, a senior member of the research faculty at Tel Aviv University and a Law professor at the Shaarei Mishpat College in Hod HaSharon.

Einhorn delivered her statements at a session entitled "U.S.-Israel Relations" at the Jerusalem Conference which concluded Wednesday. She declared: "It is important to remember and mention daily what Israel has already said for years, not only the government, but judicial experts - that Yesha [Judea, Samaria and Gaza], according to international law is not occupied territory." Einhorn explained that when Israel won the Six-Day War, no foreign country had recognized sovereignty over the land that was liberated. Egypt claimed no sovereignty over Gaza, and when Jordan tried to assert sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in 1950, the only countries to recognize it were England and Pakistan - with England limiting its recognition to eastern Jerusalem, but not the expanses of land extending north and south of it.

"Their biggest opponents were in fact the Arab countries," said Einhorn. She went on to say that the 1967 demarcation lines are in fact, according to international agreements, simply cease-fire lines that should never be considered political demarcations or national borders.

In the Encyclopedia of International Law, it is written that Israel was established without international borders. Israel's only internationally recognized borders are with Jordan and Egypt, as a result of the peace agreements that were signed.

Calling Israel 'Colonialist' with the intention of deligitimization is very severe, Einhorn said, especially considering how specious the argument is. "The Land of Israel is our land. No other nation ever made Israel into its country."

Einhorn reminded the attendees at the Jerusalem Conference that the biblical curse according to which Israel will remain desolate when controlled by foreigners unfolded throughout history as a reality. Einhorn pointed out that it is largely for this reason that no other nation ever claimed it, and "we must remember this."

Even Ariel Sharon has acknowledged this.

He has used the term "occupied" only one time, and that was because of the onslaught of pressure coming from the UN, US, EU, Russia, Israeli leftists, the Arab world, and his own fears about his perception in the world.

Don't forget that Sharon was the preeminent supporter of the now-labeled "occupied territories." Those "settlements" are there because he helped set them up! For most of his life, he praised Zionism to the hilt. Unfortunately, the office of PM has altered his behavior regarding Zionism, but I do not think he genuinely believes in his heart that Israel is illegally occupying any land.

Sharon's words have become very untrustworthy in the last few years. He flipflops worse than John Kerry. He's liable to say anything these days. If you've been following Israeli politics, you'll know that much of what Sharon says should not automatically be regarded as admissions, denials, agreements, plans, or anything that might portend something significant. We have to watch his actions, but even then, we would have to put them in the correct context, taking into account the matrix of political calculations and contrasting pressures from all sides, to understand his true motivations. For instance, Sharon calling part of Israel "occupied" probably means only that one source of lobbying and pressure is having more influence at that particular moment than other sources.

Re:Asymmetric situations.

[actiondan]

According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel.

It may well be the case that, according to certain readings of international law, Israel is not defined as occupying the areas where the Palestinians live.

In which case, the Palestinians are long-time residents of Israel and should be given full citizenship and voting rights. Israel is a democratic state, right?

Re:Asymmetric situations.

[actiondan]

There are 120 members of the Knesset. If one fifth of the population of Israel is Arab, why is only one twenty-fourth of the Knesset Arab?

This report by the US State Department makes interesting reading if you think that Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as Jewish citizens:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/79 4. htm

How many Palestinians have you actually met?

The ones that I have met didn't seem to want anyone dead, of any religion.

The vast majority (at least in my experience) are just normal people who desperately want to do all the things that normal people do. They are afraid of the hardcore Palestinian militants in the same way that they are afraid of the IDF. The older people are worried that their children are being turned to militancy because what they see and hear about week by week is IDF troops and tanks knocking down houses and killing people. These kids do not have the opportunity to see the devastating effects that Paelstinian terrorism is having on Israeli citizens.

I really think you need to stop taking the actions of a small minority of Palestinians and using it to form an opinion of over 3 million people (that's a 2001 figure so probably higher now)

There are Israelis who hate Arabs with the same religious fevour that you are attributing to the Palestinians. Do I think that all Israelis think like that? No, of course I don't - I have taken the time to talk to some real Israelis and find out what they really think.

Dan.

Fewer casualties?

[danharan]

It is odd to read people think this will reduce the number of casualties, especially "collateral damage".

This is not unlike some of the security discussions we've had here. Force people to have 4 passwords, and they'll write them on sticky-notes besides their screen, reducing security. Passwords are _supposed_ to make systems safer, but abuse them and they are counter-productive.

Drone technologies will completely change the strategy of conflict. One month before 9/11, a colleague and I predicted rc planes would be used against the White House. Ok, so we were off. But think about it: if the Israelis can use this, why couldn't the "terrorist" Palestinians? Imagine for a second what an rc plane/helicopter could do with non-conventional means...

Assymetrical warfare is used because one side has no chance at symmetrical -conventional- warfare. As this reinforces "full-spectrum dominance", it only increases the risk of terrorist attack.

I hope such drones are only used for reconnaissance, and not to carry out direct assassinations, causing another escalation.

In the long-term, we will need to make our conflict resolution systems more robust, so they don't degenerate so fast and with such bloody consequences. Another interesting thing to note is as war becomes more capital intensive, we can expect the rise of Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation

Your ideology is about 30 years out of date

[MythoBeast]

The Palestinians would just kill the Israelis that are living on Palestinian land, or at least "deport" them back to Israel. You've obviously missed the entire point behind this conflict.

If 800,000 Mexicans built a city just north of the Mexican border, and proclaimed it to be Mexican territory, how would America react? What if they had more tanks and missiles than we did, and responded to our attempts to move them out by blowing up San Antonio and killing our leaders?

The Palestinians are the Israeli equivalent to our Native Americans. Israel is taking whatever it wants from them, and they're just trying to stem the flow of loss.

Re:Absurd level of moral relativism.

[instarx]

And the US was morally superior, you say? In WWII the US used flamethrowers to incinerate 50 teenage student nurses in a cave on Iwo Jima when they refused to come out. In Vietnam Wiliam Calley ordered the execution of 350 women, children and elderly at My Lai. More than 20% of the victims were under the age of 5. The US killed more civilians in the fire-bombing of Dresden (an open city) than the Japanese killed in Nanking by an order of magnitude. Did this make the US and all its soldiers amoral? No. Neither did Nanking make the Kamikaze amoral.

My point, and I think that of the original poster, is the morality of killing innocents does not hinge on the mode of delivery.