Paragliding Military Drones Under Development

electric_mongoose writes "NewScientistTech has a story about paragliding military drones being developed by a US company called Atair Aerodynamics. These aircraft could be airdropped or ground launched and fly for over 48 hours carrying a 100 kilogram payload, including video surveillance equipment."

Comments

Red?

[timboc007]

Somehow I don't think that red parachutes will contribute to "carry out stealth missions" (from TFA)

Re:Red?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least we know that if there WAS alien life on Mars, we'd have an effective *red* weapon to use against them!

Re:Red?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a Chinese invasion outside of the Earth would be effective enough.

Re:Red?

[arivanov]

This may be nitpicking, but the article is a bit misleading. The item described in it is not a classic paraglider. It is a powered ultralite parachute hang glider. Different cattle of fish altogether. It is not invisible, it is not silent and it has an IR signature larger than many planes. It is a perfect strela/stinger bait. The IR signature on it will allow a lock on from many km away and it is too slow and cumbersome to perform any evasive action.

Re:Red?

[timeOday]

Probably costs 10x less than a single stinger though, too.

Re:Red?

[arivanov]

With all the remote control? Doubt it. Even if it did, with this IR sig and speed you can take pot-shots at it with nearly any AA gun and hit it at leasure. Even a WW2 era AA system will have no problems with it provided that its sight has been upgraded for IR. A more modern AA like one of the russian ZSUs will simply take it out "in the meantime" with one volley and continue onto more important stuff.

The only thing this may be usefull for are police operations.

Surely this will be more use to guerrillas?

[Captain Kirk]

As an Irishman who lived under British helicopters for a time, I can see that this technology makes the flight and surveillance capabilities that once were restricted to states available to all.

Small irregular groups fighting state armies will use technology like this to balance their lack of cash and lack of supporters.

A simple example would be that an INLA unit instead of shooting a Member of Parliamnet could use a drone to track him and a second drone to dive bomb him with 100kg of C4.

The implication is that an organisation with little popular support and little capital could inflict heavy casualties on anyone it chooses. 100 kg is a LOT of C4. Even bank robbers could use this.

I have deliberately used an example from northern Ireland to avoid people with strong views on Iraq or Israel assuming that I want an off topic debate. Just think bout how this technology changes the balance of power that has traditionally shaped our thinking on policing and military defenses.

Re:Surely this will be more use to guerrillas?

[ImWithBrilliant]

Nothing that can't be done by a bush airplane, and these things cost as much if not more than a used single engine or kit plane.

I've seen the conceptual UAV project that the new hires at Dahlgren, Virginia worked on http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Successful_Test_Fl ights_Of_New_Armed_UAV.html

This technology needs a lot of maturation before any combat application including terror: it is very noisy, unstable at speed on the ground, and requires a lot of ground support personnel. Holds exciting promise to a well equipped military for something like convey escort, but it's too high tech for backwater armies.

Re:Surely this will be more use to guerrillas?

[kalirion]

As I understand it, Scott Adams' The Religion War has terrorists using GPS guided drones.

Re:Surely this will be more use to guerrillas?

[ichigo 2.0]

A simple example would be that an INLA unit instead of shooting a Member of Parliamnet could use a drone to track him and a second drone to dive bomb him with 100kg of C4.

A single bullet costs a lot less than 100 kg of C4 and a drone. Now against a humvee or some other vehicle it would be useful, but it's still cheaper to dig the C-4 under the road and wait for someone to drive over it instead of using expensive drones for the task.

Re:Surely this will be more use to guerrillas?

[Captain Kirk]

A bullet requires intelligence as to where the target will be and require stha assassin to face risk of being shot by bodyguards. Digging holes and filling them with explosives requires even better intelligence. The advantage is with the target - by changing his schedule he can make assassination much more difficult.

A flying eye in the sky coupled with a flying bomb gives the assassin all the advantages. If this technology works, we will have to rethink how we do security. It won't change the world but it will be very unpleasant for elected officials while a counter-strategy is being developed.

Re:Surely this will be more use to guerrillas?

[andrewman327]

Given the noise that these things make, hopefully the member of parliment would notice (unless it is Mr. Ndeezi of the Australian parliament). The police or military would be able to detect an object like this pretty quickly and track it. I think there are better ways of delivering a 100kg explosive payload than an ultralight.

Flying Monkeys

[Doomedsnowball]

Given the success of NASA in this area, I don't really see how anyone can compete with that braintrust and bankroll. Given the same requirements, I could likely build something similar to Atair's attempt in my garage. I'm very unimpressed. Plus, TFA seems like a weak PR attempt from a fringe, wannabe defense contractor.

First processed that title as

[wizwormathome]

Paragliding Monkey Drones

Seeing a comment abut guerillas didn't help either :P

Not trivial at all

[chord.wav]

Paragliding flight is not trivial. Even in wide open areas, the thermal winds require active piloting to avoid the the canopy to lose inner presure. Unless they use DHV 1 type canopies, but even then, the course would need to be corrected. They would need to come up with a really cool auto-pilot.

Re:Not trivial at all

[kyoorius]

Powered parachutes are a lot less twitchy. They could also compensate by using a smaller wing and more power for better control (at the expense of fuel consumption). I am skeptical about the 48 hr flight claim though, most powered paragliders these days can run for about 4 hrs max. Also, there's little that can stop these from being sucked up to 20,000ft and frozen into an ice cube if they fly too close to a cu-nimb cloud :)

GPS guided paragliders are nothing new. I remember visiting a small company at least 10 years ago that produced gps paragliders/parachutes which were used to autonomously guide supplies to designated drop zones. I don't remember the exact name of the company, but they also produced altimeters for skydivers.

It could also carry...

[CokoBWare]

• Leaflets
• Food and medical supplies
• A bomb
• Starbucks coffee for the boys
• Non-lethal weapons - like a sound generator
• A spy - like James Bond
• A mini-nuke
• Chemical weapons
• Leaflets
• A "laser" (think Austin Powers)
• Temporary Wi-Fi mesh hotspot
• Pornography for the troops for those long and lonely nights

There's more I'm sure...

Re:It could also carry...

[johansalk]

I assume there'd be someone somewhere whose job would be to choose porn for those said troops.

Re:It could also carry...

[Rude Turnip]

"A "laser" (think Austin Powers)"

Impossible...the weight of the shark and the water tank required to sustain is far more than 100kg.

I'm no aviation engineer ...

[LoudMusic]

But wouldn't a smaller fixed wing setup be more stable and reliable? And perhaps be able to do ground launches instead of being dropped from a plane?

Re:I'm no aviation engineer ...

[Mysticalfruit]

A buddy of mine told me about something a while back that was pretty cool. On his base they were testing a portable remote controlled airplane. Basically it was two backpacks. One backpack contained the plane all folded up, plus a big bungie cord, fuel, etc. The other backpack contained a hardened laptop with a joystick. The software for the plane was pretty simple and it could fly itself. Another thing that they were looking at was modifying it with a laser designator so you could use it to designate tragets to be bombed, etc.

I know the army now has something like this, but I'm not sure if was born from this prototype or something else.

Democratize Surveillance

[jlev]

I've worked on a similar project at MIT, with the goal of open sourcing the hardware and software to make this capability available to media, NGOs and other non-state actors. Something like this would be incredbily useful in Afghanistan or Darfur for making food or medical supply drops, or distributing leaflets. We conducted test flights on the US/Mexico border looking for evidence of anti-immigrant groups that are known to promulgate unlawful violence against political and economic refugees there. While much has been made of using UAVs for "border security," the systems may also be used to keep our homeland safe by observing and reporting illegal proto-fascist activities.

"Shoot me, I'm a big noisy parachute"

[writerjosh]

A lazy terrorist with a shoulder rocket launcher could take one of these out while on his lunch break. I don't see why DARPA is so excited about this. I'm sure it'll be as effective as those stealth hot-air balloons they used in the Revolutionary War.

Re:"Shoot me, I'm a big noisy parachute"

[ceoyoyo]

Rocket launcher? That would be lazy. You could take one of these out with a rifle. Or, for the coolness factor, a fire arrow!

Re:"Shoot me, I'm a big noisy parachute"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lack of knowledge is only surpassed by your arrogance and stupidity. All current air to ground shoulder launched missils are heat seakers that track jet exhaust heat plumes. It's not clear that they could track any non-jet engine, much less a very small power plant that can be designed for both low heat and low noise operation. Combine that with low radar cross section and visual camouflage and you have a system that is hard to detect by eye or by a sensor.

As for calling terrorists lazy, your are doing them a huge favor. One of the most direct paths to loosing is to underestimate your opponent. Fools like you on our side scare me as much as the terroists.

Re:"Shoot me, I'm a big noisy parachute"

[RM6f9]

Dropped from 50 miles away (preferably directly upwind), powered until altitude maintenance not as important as silence, capable of gliding in from a mile or so lateral and 2 miles up, couple that with some timing, minimal radar signature - you'd better have some *sharp* observers and operators to detect one of these in your area, and by the time you do, it's probably too late. Poor man's stealth, true, but stealthy nonetheless...

(irony: capcha code for this reply is "disobey")

Re:Mod Parent Up, Comment Don't Censor

[MLease]

Ok, so it's big news and Pentagon related. But what does it have to do with "Paragliding Military Drones"? Just because the GP talks about military issues doesn't automatically relate it to the topic. That's why someone (not me, no mod points today, and I rarely either mod anyone down or mod ACs at all) flagged it Offtopic; it is offtopic. (And so is this -- sorry!)

I'm one who believes that mod points should not be used to express agreement or disagreement. But I can see why the GP got gigged for Offtopic, and if I happen to get to Meta-Mod it, I'll mark it Fair.

-Mike

Funny

[Mark_MF-WN]

Funny, but also true. The US army has always been the very model of morale, part of the reason it's so successfull. And things like (good) coffee and stuff like that really do help win wars. Canada had a Tim Hortons donut shop built in Afghanistan, for precisely that reason. Supply drops of Starbucks, pizza pops, and microbrew are the kind of thing that really keep the troops stompin'.

Also here: Flying like Batman

[rainer_d]

In German, but you get the idea from the pictures:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,4 27494,00.html.