Microdrone Spy Planes

Fly through Windows? by l810c · 2004-03-26 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny

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? by airrage · 2004-03-26 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
Re:Fly through Windows? by avgjoe62 · 2004-03-26 07:05 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Re:Fly through Windows? by BJZQ8 · 2004-03-26 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Dig that propeller! by The+I+Shing · 2004-03-26 06:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:Dig that propeller! by ch-chuck · 2004-03-26 07:02 · Score: 4, Funny

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).

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Still no jetpacks? by bangular · 2004-03-26 06:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by slycer9 · 2004-03-26 06:53 · Score: 5, Funny

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......

--
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.

Very clever by ackthpt · 2004-03-26 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Very clever by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-26 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-26 07:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by WNight · 2004-03-26 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Tomorrow's Scout by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-03-26 06:53 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--

Obliteracy: Words with explosions

Re:Tomorrow's Scout by Tackhead · 2004-03-26 08:15 · Score: 5, Funny

> 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 by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-03-26 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

Re:Better killers by GuyMannDude · 2004-03-26 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
watch this
Re:Better killers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-26 07:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by Desert+Raven · 2004-03-26 09:23 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Microsoft Spy Planes by neko9 · 2004-03-26 06:55 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Microsoft Spy Planes by Boglin · 2004-03-26 07:14 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Nothing new by baudilus · 2004-03-26 06:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Just like in DUNE by Capt'n+Hector · 2004-03-26 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?

I'd like to see... by rthille · 2004-03-26 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

hm by EMH_Mark3 · 2004-03-26 06:56 · Score: 5, Funny

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

*rimshot*

--
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me

More information from PBS... by Foggiano · 2004-03-26 06:57 · Score: 5, Informative

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

GTA Vice City by CharAznable · 2004-03-26 07:04 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder

Related Link by Your_Mom · 2004-03-26 07:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap

Not Collective by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-26 07:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Collective?

I think you mean "kibbutz".

Re:Not Collective by airrage · 2004-03-26 07:11 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"

Problem in plane by g0bshiTe · 2004-03-26 07:29 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Re:72 Virgins by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-03-26 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

What about married people? by fmaxwell · 2004-03-26 08:18 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Cooler than my firebird.. by -tji · 2004-03-26 08:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by melted · 2004-03-26 08:49 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:72 Virgins by CrankyFool · 2004-03-26 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Fewer casualties? by danharan · 2004-03-26 09:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"

36 of 494 comments (clear)