Defending Against Drones

theodp writes "The US has not had to truly think about its air defense since the Cold War. But as America embraces the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, Newsweek says it's time to consider how our greatest new weapon may come back to bite us. Smaller UAVs' cool, battery-powered engines make them difficult to hit with conventional heat-seeking missiles. And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, at $3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag, especially if we have to deal with $500 DIY drones."

Comments

It's all about the tech

[twisteddk]

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that I can disable a $500 drone with little less than a portable radio, my laptop and a couple of bucks worth of radioshack equipment. Thing about the drones is that they TOO have weaknesses. And a safe, unbreakable, unhackable, wireless, remote control interface costs a LOT more than $500. And an EM emitter, or even just a remote jamming device, or in case of a wireguided or automated drone a laser to interfere with or destroy the optics seems like pretty easy to come by and cheap solutions.

And for those really high tech drones that can survive these kinds of odds. I'm sure we can spend a cheap stinger on. Why anyone would WANT to make the leap all the way to a patriot missile, made for smashing down objects the size of a spaceshuttle is beyond me.

Re:It's all about the tech

[JanneM]

Even high school students are dabbling in autonomous drones nowadays, and most research on autonomous vehicles is open and readily downloadable. Your jammer is not going to help too much if the drone knows what it's supposed to do without radio contact.

And you need to know there's a drone to jam a kilometer overhead in the first place.

Re:It's all about the tech

[kangsterizer]

it depends on the drones
remote controlled DYI drones uses analog video (easy to jam) and FHSS UHF radio signals for control (hard to jam, but not that hard. also crackable to get the control)
completely independent ones (like the one linked).. i dunno what you're planning, EMP wave?
they do not need any ground communication. in fact, they one single weakness: they use GPS for orientation. The USA can disable the GPS whenever necessary.
However some other positioning systems are coming up and its not impossible to make them fly to the right location without GPS control, actually, even without any of the satellite based systems, only using sensors and image analysis (tho those aren't as easy and well known at the DYI ones)

Re:Defense?

[FriendlyLurker]

As US war hero Maj General S.Butler, the most highly decorated Marine by the time of his death (not to mention also single-handedly preventing the closest coup d’état overthrow of a United States President), described US foreign "defense" policy way back in the 1930's:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Wrong cost comparison

[sunking2]

It's not about the cost of what you have to shoot down but what you have to defend.

Re:Defense?

[geoskd]

Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started? Please cite your sources to how we started them too. I think if you take the time to research this subject you're going to get a wicked eye opening.

Ok, since we are going to have a go of it...

1st: Iraq. We invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose a Dictator, but instead only ended up wreaking havoc on the most politically and socially stable country in the middle east. Anyone who believes Bush seniors decision to invade Iraq following the Kuwait fiasco, needs only come and see me about a bridge I have for sale. The reasons for the Gulf Ware were largely fabricated at the time by the Kuwaiti Royal family who by no co-incidence happen to be family friends of the Bush family. Whether knowingly or not, George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted US invasion of an OPEC nation, for what appeared to be monetary reasons.

2nd: Iraq again, Round two, had even less valid reasons, and smelled worse than the first.

3rd: Afghanistan. Once again, we invade another country, This time for supporting terrorists, but if you had asked any of the senior Russian military personnel about catching terrorists in Afghanistan, they would have told you to save your effort. Even without US interference, Afghanistan was difficult for the USSR to handle, but then the US provided them with weapons to kill Soviets (and one another) with, but was no where to be found when the killing was over, and it was time to rebuild. We shouldn't have to wonder why the Taliban (who we actually supported at one time) think we're slime.

4th: Bay of pigs. You can look that one up on your own time.

5th: The Spanish American war. The US on the path to empire takes on those who are in the way.

There is plenty more, that was just what I came across in a 10 minute trek through Wikipedia.

-=Geoskd