Slashdot Mirror


Many UAVs Vulnerable To Directed-Energy Weapons

mask.of.sanity writes "A New Zealand researcher has detailed ways that UAVs can be crashed using cheap tools like Herf guns and GPS jammers, and could even be downed by flying drones with more powerful radio. The attacks (podcast) interfere with the navigation systems used by flying drones and are possible because security was not designed into the architecture of some machines."

153 comments

  1. Illegal by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, of course there are illegal tools that can down them.
    Next up: "drones vulnerable to anti-air missiles"

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    1. Re:Illegal by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Funny

      You were the kind of kid who, upon reading about dinosaurs for the first time, said "yeah, well I already knew that there was such a thing as animals", right?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Illegal by somersault · · Score: 1, Redundant

      No no, he never learned to read, because he already knew there was such a thing as conveying information.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Illegal by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      The amazing part here is there doesn't seem to be much basic 'offline' intelligence built into them so that if control signals are scrambled or lost it can fly straight and level until conditions improve.

    4. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So using electronic countermeasures against enemy aircraft in a theater of war is illegal now? I did not know that.

      "Dmitri, I'm sorry they're jamming your radar and flying so low, but they're trained to do it."

    5. Re:Illegal by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. That an UAV is vulnerable to extreme high power microwaves just doesn't surprise me.
      There is a lot that would be destroyed with a blast from such a HERF gun. Wifi interfaces and bluetooth devices especially like it. That is why it is usually illegal (and stupid) to use a microwave oven with a damaged containment.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's mostly meant as a contrast to a tank, airplaine or any regular car, which are not vulnerable to this type of weapon.

    7. Re:Illegal by gtall · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.

    8. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you already knew this, why didn't you write the article yourself months ago? Why are you depriving the world of your genius?

    9. Re:Illegal by erroneus · · Score: 2

      The assumption, which I hold to be quite valid, is that as with all other government weapons systems, the fear is that they are to be used on the people of the U.S. As they continue to pass laws which enable them to do so, the concern deepens. And I'm somewhat left confused about any law that has ever been written and simply not implemented. Laws start with a desire or need to address a concern. Lately, it has been about enabling the government to do more than they have been allowed to do in the past.

      In short, they have been passing laws which enable the military to operate within the US and to act against the people of the US. Legislators wouldn't go through the trouble of writing and passing such legislation if they didn't plan to use it.

    10. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I weap for those chickens in the barnyard.

    11. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That is why it is usually illegal (and stupid) to use a microwave oven with a damaged containment."

      I'd never do that! It's dangerous.
      I just use the emitter from my microwave together with a parabolic antenna to communicate with aliens.
      I always wondered why drones are dropping like flies around my home.

    12. Re:Illegal by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused."

      Just like some old people, drones don't always know that they are confused.

    13. Re:Illegal by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's strange "HOME" seems to be right in the middle of that convoy... Oh well, just following my orders, sir!

    14. Re:Illegal by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yep, not exactly news lol.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Illegal by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Of course they're vulnerable. You just need to dial up more energy.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:Illegal by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      We are rapidly approaching an age where absolutely everything is illegal, according to one law or the other.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What illegal tools? Operating a drone legally which just happens to be more powerful could down another drone nearby.
      Also, if the UAV in question is not where its supposed to be, everything to down it is legal.

    18. Re: Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done forget airplanes.
      The are very vulnerable to piolted airplanes.
      I would imagine other drones too.

      The are real only useful over areas controlled by AK47s and RPGS.

      Any air defense would take them down.

    19. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "home", but to a "loss of link waypoint", which is most likely near home and far from the source of interference. If GPS is lost along with the command/control link, the UAV may attempt to navigate to the LOL waypoint by dead reckoning using last known valid position, airspeed, wind estimate, etc.

    20. Re:Illegal by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.

      Or they thought about how to market the product. Doesn't mean there's actually any functionality there.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    21. Re:Illegal by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      You will get intelligent drones that can fly standalone, without any remote control. From there is is a very small step to automate the "kill human"decision as well

      Termintor drones are not as far away as you might think.

      The other solution is not to make them more resistant to such attacks, but to make them so cheap you do not have to worry to loose a drone. You just pcik up a new one, use like one uses other munition/rockets.

    22. Re:Illegal by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I believe many of them have MEMS inertial sensors and can navigate fairly well without any GPS. I know some missiles operate that way at least.

    23. Re:Illegal by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Just remember to buy your drone hunting license first.

    24. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars used to have carbs and points. Those cars are not vulnerable.

    25. Re:Illegal by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Navigate via landmarks, probably.

      You don't actually need GPS to find someplace, it's just a lot easier and more accurate.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the distributor wouldn't stop working?

    27. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the UAV may attempt to navigate to the LOL waypoint

      Sorry, but waypoints aren't funny.

    28. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what will always happen when instead of repealing laws, new ones are enacted to 'update' the old one.

      Congress rarely, if ever, repeals laws. But they make new laws all the time.

    29. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, it's you young smartasses that think you know everything who are confused, sonny. Go troll somebody else, boy.

    30. Re:Illegal by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I think it's mostly meant as a contrast to a tank, airplaine or any regular car, which are not vulnerable to this type of weapon.

      Who says they are not vulnerable? They are to varying degrees.

      In fact, each of these items you mention are *tested* or have design tolerance to such weapons. The military pays close attention to such things when they buy them and I've seen the results of testing on commercially available cars.

      The REAL issue here is how vulnerable drones are to disruptions in communications and navigation data that flows over RF based links. That is the reason we don't want to be solely dependent on them.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    31. Re: Illegal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that those low-carb cars weren't a good idea after all?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:Illegal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS

      I have only thought about this for five seconds, but here is my solution: Use a $5 magnetic compass to maintain a constant heading until you are far enough from the jammer to pick up the GPS signal again. Then use GPS to fly home.

    33. Re:Illegal by fredrated · · Score: 1

      What does 'illegal' have to due with the topic of discussion? Are you claiming a general rule like "For any given X, of course you can do X if you allow illegal stuff"?

    34. Re:Illegal by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course there are illegal tools that can down them.

      You can actually legally own a Bofors L/60 towed anti aircraft autocannon in the US. Drones are vulnerable to one of those too, along with pretty much everything else less beefy than a main battle tank.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    35. Re:Illegal by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      They don't have sensors to identify landmarks - unless they're being piloted remotely by camera that's no use. Even so, if GPS is denied, they can use inertial navigation and compass heading to get pretty darn close to their failsafe waypoints.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    36. Re:Illegal by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      So the distributor wouldn't stop working?

      You may be able to cook the coil, but probably not the distributor. You would likely need enough energy to melt the sheet metal in the body of the car to fry an old distributor. It might be possible to fuse the points, but that would be enough energy to bbq the passanger.

    37. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually how that do it.

      BUT the compass is likely highly calibrated (not $5) and they have a $$$ IMU to do odometry/Dead Reckoning as well.

    38. Re:Illegal by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone actually have any actual links or citations for states where there are laws against using HERF guns or using " a microwave oven with a damaged containment"?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re: Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PERSIAN MESSENGER: A thousand nations ofÂtheÂPersian empire descend upon you. OurÂarrowsÂwillÂblotÂoutÂtheÂsun!

      STELIOS: Then weÂwillÂfight inÂtheÂshade.

    40. Re:Illegal by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      But the inverse square law applies the problem becomes increasing the power output and having good enough fire control to be able to direct the beam onto the target (maneuvering in 3d space) for long enough to be useful as opposed to the trusty Dushka (12.7 mm HMG)

      Of course you then just fly the drones with escort drones and when they detect a CREWS attack you whack a hellfire equipped to home on radiation to kill the attacker - you could probably automate this or just have a big red button next to the drone pilots seat that triggers.

    41. Re:Illegal by glucoseboy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that can be defeated as well. Remember Iran capturing a US drone a few years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident Gee, technology foiled by other technology? who knew?

    42. Re:Illegal by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The impresssssion I got was the article was talking mostly about hobby grade quadracopters, with perhaps a webcam controlled by a 2.4 GHz hobbiest remote controller, not military grade UAVs; a few may have been commercial grade units marketed for industrial or law enforcement use.

      Firing up a transmitter powerfull enough to jam a military grade drone flying over a battlefield is the shurest way I know of to find out if Allah realy has 72 virgins waiting for you in the promised land.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    43. Re:Illegal by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If they're not protected against RF then it doesn't matter how much offline intelligence you build in, because it will still get scrambled by HERF. You have to not only consider how much noise your design will generate, but what kind of electrical noise in your circuit will be generated by excessive radio noise. If you've bought an Arduino and an IMU off the shelf you have none of that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:Illegal by cusco · · Score: 1

      That started with Ronnie Raygun's War On Some Drugs, when he decided that posse comitus didn't apply to anti-drug operations.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    45. Re:Illegal by ImprovOmega · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.

      Inertial Navigation Systems. Not as accurate as GPS, but good enough to at least not land in enemy territory. And hypothetically by the time you got within a few miles of the base, the GPS would be back online.

    46. Re:Illegal by cusco · · Score: 1

      I think you have to fix it so that it only operates in semi-automatic mode, don't you?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    47. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But LOLCATS waypoints are!

    48. Re:Illegal by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      the point is, duh, UAVs are aircraft and are similar to any modern aircraft in their susceptibilities.

    49. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, no flying between cell towers or telcom towers or near TV/Radio towers?

    50. Re:Illegal by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      Finally.. haha. Can't believe it took more than 10 posts on /. for someone to mention INS.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    51. Re:Illegal by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      No you just need to be a Class 3 firearms license holder, which you would need anyway since at 40mm with a rifled barrel it is a class 3 destructive device.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    52. Re:Illegal by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The problem is, if the computer notices a discrepancy between its location as reported by the GPS and INS, how does it decide which one to believe and which one has failed?

    53. Re:Illegal by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      you can do your own googling but as far as I'm aware the FCC would be very unhappy about any type of unlicensed transmitter that interferes with FCC certified stuff like R/C toys.

    54. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one failing fewer of its redundant backups.

    55. Re:Illegal by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      This is a fairly solved problem, actually. Serious navigation systems continuously estimate their performance, and have redundant sensors/etc. When an airliner is approaching an airport via clouds the pilot will not attempt the approach if the navigation system reports that its accuracy isn't sufficient to guarantee the avoidance of obstacles (the required performance gets tighter as you get closer to the ground, up to the max of Cat III ILS which basically can land a plane with no visibility at all which means being accurate within a meter or two).

      If the INS says that it should be good within 200m, and the GPS signal disagrees by 3km, chances are the GPS is being messed with. Also, I'm not sure how vulnerable GPS is to replay attacks, but military units would be able to authenticate the signal using the encrypted channel which civilian receivers cannot use.

      GPS also isn't the only navigation system out there - maybe deep in enemy territory it is, but as it gets closer to home it would probably have access to other beacons.

    56. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given sufficient power output, the problem is reduced to choosing a point from a 2D surface (something parabolic-like, a field-of-view), as microwave radiation propagates at a significantly higher velocity than a massive round. You would only need a 3D model to regulate power consumption (rather than simple on/off).

    57. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is well known that there are at least 72 virgins there. The biggest problem is finding the ones who aren't your cell-mates who arrived with you.

  2. UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and my BIC pen melts so easily when I throw it in the blast furnace. Lousy engineers.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Beautifully put, and correct.

      However:

      New Zealand security researcher Stuart MacIntosh told delegates at the Kiwicon 7 conference in Wellington that some vulnerable drone technology designed in the hobby space had trickled down into use by police and commercial operators.

      Which makes it notable. Before you use a consumer-oriented item for more serious use, you need to evaluate its fitness for purpose.

      Of course, you might go ahead and use it anyway - that's what risk assessment is all about.

    2. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Shoten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Beautifully put, and correct.

      However:

      New Zealand security researcher Stuart MacIntosh told delegates at the Kiwicon 7 conference in Wellington that some vulnerable drone technology designed in the hobby space had trickled down into use by police and commercial operators.

      Which makes it notable. Before you use a consumer-oriented item for more serious use, you need to evaluate its fitness for purpose.

      Of course, you might go ahead and use it anyway - that's what risk assessment is all about.

      Also true...but honestly, I can't recall the last time cops had to worry about crooks with HERF guns. It would be a lot easier, safer and cheaper for the bad guys to simply *shoot* at the drones in these situations. We're not talking about flights of Predators or Reapers flying thousands of feet up, backed by a Gorgon's Eye implementation. We're talking about what's basically a glorified RC copter flying at hundreds of feet.

      I will now coin a new acronym..."KEDW," or "Kinetic Energy Directed Weapon," also known as a "gun," and go speak to a conference about how it is a much worse threat than this...because not only can it shoot down police drones, it can hurt people too!

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    3. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      It may not be as easy as you think to shoot and hit a small moving target hundreds of feet in the air.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      I think anyone who has ever been bird hunting (or clay pigeon shooting) knows exactly how hard it is to hit small moving targets hundreds of feet in the air.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      More like dozens of feet.

      Not hundreds.

      Bird & clay pigeon shooting is typically small gauge shotguns, whose range is dozens of feet. Not hundreds.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you can get a drone within 50 yards of me, I could possibly hit it with the shotgun. Outside of that range, things get a whole lot more difficult and it's going to be impossible outside of about 100 yards. Trying to hit a drone using a rifle is about the best you can hope for beyond 100 yards, and those shots would be one in a million.

      So, if the drone is flying higher than about 150 feet it is unlikely to be in danger from any kinetic weapon carried by the perp.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 50 caliber rifle will shoot the shit out of a drone at a distance much greater than 100 yards.

    8. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Shoten · · Score: 1

      I think anyone who has ever been bird hunting (or clay pigeon shooting) knows exactly how hard it is to hit small moving targets hundreds of feet in the air.

      Yes, but two things. One, drones of the sort described in the report don't move around much when being used, and definitely not at the speed of a clay pigeon. Two, you get more than one shot at it. Three, you can use a scope, or a shotgun with a smaller or larger choke as you like. Four, even if you miss, just shooting at the drone may be enough to get them to move it, thus succeeding in impeding its usefulness.

      And five, the difficulty of shooting a moving object with a projectile is less than that of shooting at it with a HERF gun. Unlike a rifle, you can't easily zero the sights of a HERF gun or be assured of exactly what the field it generates looks like. Maybe it's wide, maybe it's narrow...testing it is not simple. And even if you can, then you still have to aim it...just like a gun.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    9. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by denzacar · · Score: 2

      What about you and a couple of your friends armed with AKs?

      If I recall correctly that kind of shooting is effective up to 600 meters (concentrated firing).

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    10. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this shouldn't really be an Earth-shattering surprise. In fact, I've always thought that the DOD interest in directed energy weapons was specifically for shooting down cheap flimsy things like drones. Even countries with tiny military budgets could build large fleets of drones that we would have a hard time shooting down with conventional missiles. I just figured that HERF weapons and the like were the simplest solution to swatting a lot of lightweight threats in a reliable cost-effective way.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    11. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Against stationary targets maybe, or if the UAV is moving towards you. If it's moving quickly tangentially to you, good luck. Also, UAV's come in many sizes and shapes. Unless you know for sure either its altitude or size, you won't know where to aim. As in, "Is that a small UAV at 150 feet, a medium UAV at 500 feet, or a large UAV at a 1,000 feet?"

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    12. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo, military and commercial entities use Windows... home edition.... and likely used by police and commercial ops. It's all about assessing the application environment.

    13. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by slim · · Score: 1

      Effective against what? A Parrot AR Drone (the hobby UAV under test) is about 57cm across. Much less than that side-on.

      That's a pretty tiny target at 600 meters distance.

    14. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by phrackthat · · Score: 1

      I will now coin a new acronym..."KEDW," or "Kinetic Energy Directed Weapon," also known as a "gun," and go speak to a conference about how it is a much worse threat than this...because not only can it shoot down police drones, it can hurt people too!

      I think KEPOW works better for a gun. "Kinetic Energy Projectile Ordinance Weapon"

    15. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      For YOU maybe...[spins six-shooter]

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    16. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also true...but honestly, I can't recall the last time cops had to worry about crooks with HERF guns. It would be a lot easier, safer and cheaper for the bad guys to simply *shoot* at the drones in these situations. [...]

      They don't have them yet. The Mexican drug cartels have their own mobile phone networks, so if they start suspecting they're being monitoring from the air, they (and other crimicals) will adopt.

      Safer for whom? They'll probably miss a few times and the bullets will have to come down eventually.

    17. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      What about you and a couple of your friends armed with AKs?

      If I recall correctly that kind of shooting is effective up to 600 meters (concentrated firing).

      It would be extremely effective.

      *if* you concentrate the AK47 fire at the personnel in the portable trailer containing the drone-operator control stations, and/or their families in the case of a domestic conflict. It makes it very hard to concentrate on targeting/killing civilians with a drone if you're worried sick about your entire family being executed and your home being burned to the ground while you're busy.

      There are no "rules" in a domestic civil war and military personnel's families would be high on the target list. Big problem when all your military personnel's families live in the same communities as the people they're being ordered to kill.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    18. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      If it's a police UAV it will be a standard model.

      It will also most probably be short range cause unlike the army and NSA police needs a warrant to snoop on half the city at once, which one of those flying at 1000 feet would probably be doing.
      Also, if it's gonna cover an area effectively it will have to be capable of hovering in urban environments without crashing into buildings when wind hits it from one side AND should it fall down on unsuspecting civilians it should not be able to crush and kill anyone.
      Also, being a police drone, it should be able to fit into a trunk of a police cruiser.

      Again, we're talking police and criminals in an urban area and not Afghanistan.
      Taking all that in account, it will have to be of limited size, weight, flying and spying range and it will most definitely have no firepower.

      As for the flying altitude...
      Seriously... you think the guys firing AKs at police drones will bother with ranging them?
      They'll simply rain a cloud of bullets on the drone.
      If it goes down - good, it was in the range, let's get outta here. It doesn't - it's out of the range, let's get outta here.

      They are not there on some recon mission or on their way to their secret mountain stronghold so it's vital to them to cover their tracks nor are they in it to prove their sharpshooting skills.
      They are trying to deal drugs and not get caught doing it.
      Shooting at a drone is just cheap and affordable flak.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    19. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Kinetic Armored Projectile Ordinance Weapon. KAPOW!!!

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    20. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If you could hit it, I suppose you are right. Hitting a moving drone with a 50 cal is going to require some real unusual shooting skills.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by CHIT2ME · · Score: 0

      Us hillbillies know that you just use 12 gage 00 buck and, oh yeah, lead 'em just a little more than you would a bird! Drone down!!!!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    22. Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I think I saw such a scenario in one of those Mel Gibson/Danny Glover documentaries.

      Or was it one with Arnold Braunschweiger?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  3. anti-drone warfare by AndroSyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was only a matter of time before anti-drone warfare came about. This happens with every new piece of weaponry, the quest for the anti-weapon. They don't call it an arms race for no reason.

    1. Re:anti-drone warfare by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Sure, but this article isn't even about anti-drone warfare. The researcher states: "A lot of these UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) were not really designed with security in mind apart from some that may be destined for law enforcement use or military use."

      This research is not invalid, but it's akin to showing how you can listen in on some walkie-talkies from radio shack. There certainly are analogous concerns in designing military command & control systems, but they are about 70 years past this level of "hey, you could blast some RF noise at it to drown out the signal!"

      Granted, allowing un-hardened systems to be adopted inappropriately for use in threatening environments could always be a problem. But if you bring a knife to a gunfight, hey, good luck.

    2. Re:anti-drone warfare by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that kind of like saying that the average commercial building has surveillance cameras vulnerable to a water gun filled with paint? This stuff is designed to watch traffic, or survey land, and so on. If they need to suppress a riot they'll probably send in the APCs.

  4. Directed energy weapons by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    I don't know of anything invulnerable to directed-energy weapons. From diamonds and steel to civilization and hope, everything is vulnerable to a quasar's polar jet.

    I didn't expect UAVs to survive, alone in the emptiness of space after the cataclysmic event disintegrated the entire solar system.

    Well, almost alone. There would be Nokia phones too, of course.

    1. Re:Directed energy weapons by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      The catch here is that these "directed energy weapons" were cheap trivialities bought off eBay and not military EW apparatus or gigantic celestial furnaces.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Directed energy weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that a "weapon"?

    3. Re:Directed energy weapons by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      The point in my post is that "Directed-Energy Weapons" is unnecessarily insufficiently precise.

    4. Re:Directed energy weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the crazy conspiratards on Youtube explain it to you.

    5. Re:Directed energy weapons by lxs · · Score: 1

      With the exception of bombs that scatter shrapnel in all directions, aren't most weapons directed energy weapons?
      I'll stop being pedantic before someones fist directs kinetic energy my way.

    6. Re:Directed energy weapons by InsightfulPlusTwo · · Score: 1

      From diamonds and steel to civilization and hope, everything is vulnerable to a quasar's polar jet.

      Ah, you must be Slashdot's resident poet. I look forward to your next coffee table volume. ;-)

      --
      I felt bad for the man who had no signature, until I met a man who had no comment.
    7. Re:Directed energy weapons by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Calling them "directed energy weapons" in the headline was pretty stupid. They're radio jammers and spoofers. What's their output, 10W?

    8. Re:Directed energy weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Directed energy weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is a sort of broad definition "directed" energy weapon. By that logic a mirror that reflects the sun into my attackers eyes, or the dust that I throw in the air (which carries some kinetic energy, and has a biological effect.. oh my gosh, a combination: directed energy biological weapon).

      As would be a laser, a flashlight, hmm.. just about anything except a jammer into an omni antenna, which would also work.

    10. Re:Directed energy weapons by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Calling them "directed energy weapons" in the headline was pretty stupid. They're radio jammers and spoofers. What's their output, 10W?"

      A 1200 Watt Microwave oven emitter with a decent directional antenna is still cheaper.

    11. Re:Directed energy weapons by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      unnecessarily insufficiently precise.

      Oh come on, now you're just being not unintentionally acutely obtuse.

    12. Re:Directed energy weapons by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The catch here is they are not talking about military drones.
      From the article.
      "You can walk all over [the Parrot AR Drone] with frequency-hopping spread spectrum ... you can fly a radio plane near an AR drone and it will very quickly get packet loss," MacIntosh said."
      You can interfere with a toy.... And Slashdot tumbles farther down the FUD hole.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:Directed energy weapons by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      A HERF is a converted microwave oven. They usually range in the 800-1500 W range. That is a directed energy weapon.
      It's also bad for other electronics and illegal in most countries (EM emission limits and all that).

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    14. Re:Directed energy weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a weird guy. Probably Asperger's. The word "weapon" surely isn't so imprecise as to suggest a quasar, now is it?

    15. Re:Directed energy weapons by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      Calling them "directed energy weapons" in the headline was pretty stupid. They're radio jammers and spoofers. What's their output, 10W?

      That's 10,000,000,000 nanowatts!!!!

  5. Kinda makes me wonder... by BreakBad · · Score: 1

    Surely our beloved overlords already have planned for and created such weapons and technology. Surely they wouldn't have spend eleventy billion dollars producing aircraft that can be downed by a 'more powerful radio'. There is probably a pilot contractor riding in each UAV as a backup. After all, un-maned != un-contractor'd.

    1. Re:Kinda makes me wonder... by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      TFA refers to civilian UAVs and their derivatives in law enforcement and the like, not military drones.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Kinda makes me wonder... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It really depends where the US is wrt the "planned for and created" vs prototype that can be sold to the US gov vs what the US gov wants to risk.
      All the US gov needs is a tool to watch, soak up signals and use for double tap missile strikes.
      All the US export market needs is a tool to watch, soak up signals and to enjoy ongoing 'parts' and 'service' contracts.
      The contractors are happy with every sale, the long term contracts, the missions work out and US gov risks little in the way of new tech with any crash.
      If the US where to add shielding, extra signal protection (hardware and software) the price in any crash goes up and a lot of 'new' systems would have to be changed.
      So you have a lot of tech out in the market place built to a price, built to use existing tech and for export/other gov/other country use.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Kinda makes me wonder... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      all it would really take is

      1 design and build a drone that is "cheap" by DOD standards
      2 as a first stage after %time% without a gps lock enable a GO HOME (use terrain recog)
      3 stage 2 (after %time% X 1.N) it either A climbs to MAX HEIGHT B finds the nearest "valid target" and then it self destructs

      i would of course make sure that the destruct package had a decent amount of BANG

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  6. When by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did a directed energy weapon become a "cheap tool"?

    1. Re:When by SailorSpork · · Score: 2

      When did a directed energy weapon become a "cheap tool"?

      Sorry, I initially read NERF guns... anyone can make a mistake. :)

    2. Re:When by michaelmalak · · Score: 2

      When did a GPS jammer become a directed energy weapon?

    3. Re:When by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      perhaps an omni-directed energy weapon.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:When by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the usual bad summary/title I'm afraid.

      The article itself doesn't refer to 'directed energy weapons' at all, merely refers to "tools including GPS jammers and do-it-yourself high energy radio frequency guns".

    5. Re:When by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works too depending on the size of the NERF.

    6. Re:When by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      When did a GPS jammer become a directed energy weapon?

      You know, when Han used his Tricorder to restimulate the active particule neutrino phase shifters, which resulted in a plasma beam that disrupts the life-support system on any craft that flies slower than 22 parsecs.

    7. Re:When by gaudior · · Score: 1

      When did a GPS jammer become a directed energy weapon?

      You know, when Han used his Tricorder to restimulate the active particule neutrino phase shifters, which resulted in a plasma beam that disrupts the life-support system on any craft that flies slower than 22 parsecs.

      Only if he reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.

    8. Re:When by geekoid · · Score: 1

      When it was tuned to attack a specific type of target.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. like comparing hobbies to genocides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i feel like i'm being trained to stop calling them drones?

    results never vary so far; http://youtu.be/xcdJVAUyvzc

    call this weather??? http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561
    wizards & warloks idea of climate change

  8. Also vunerable to bullets by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Or Flock of Seagulls for that matter... depending on how loud you cranked the sonic disruptor.

    2. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.

      Or have a hell of a time trying - sounds like fun!

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.

      With a trebuchet, you could send one in a variety of directions. :p

    4. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Bad 80's hair is no reason to go flinging people at things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      ... or is it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let my armies be the rocks and the trees, and the birds in the sky.

    7. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      If the Soviets could train dogs to run under tanks with bombs strapped to them, can't we train birds to fly into the engines of these drones?

    8. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Soviet attempt to train anti-tank dogs was...less than successful. The Russians trained their dogs with their own diesel-fueled tanks, which smelled different from German gasoline-fueled tanks. In the field, they discovered that this meant they had trained the dogs to blow up Soviet tanks but not German ones.

    9. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by styrotech · · Score: 1

      And I-ran (so far away) is investigating that for enhancing their anti drone program.

    10. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Let my armies be the birds and the trees, and the rocks in the sky.

      Sounds better to me this way.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    11. Re:Also vunerable to bullets by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      I think the key to training is repetition, a little difficult to do after your bird has been through the shit spinner

  9. my tv remote is D.E.W. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if i aim it with malicious intent or watch mindphucking corepirate nazi media mongrels schlapschtick?

  10. my tv remote is a DEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if i use it maliciously or watch endless mindphucking corepirate nazi media mongrel talknicians

  11. do i need to repeat myself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not again please

  12. Alanya Emlak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very nice, thanks
    http://www.yegingroup.com

  13. ALL UAV's can be taken out with direct energy..... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Unless they invented laser proof UAV's....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. From the summary: "CHEAP tools" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These tools are cheap, just like laser pointers that some use to disrupt manned aircrafts. It matters a lot to know that bored teenagers and organized criminals can both down UAVs using low-profile tools. It matters to know that local partisans in many countries can down UAVs being used against them without using million-dollar sol-air missiles (which they do not have).

    1. Re:From the summary: "CHEAP tools" by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      million-dollar sol-air missiles (which they do not have).

      Who's launching missiles from the sun? And at such a low cost?

    2. Re:From the summary: "CHEAP tools" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC here. I meant "ground-to-air missile," I was betrayed by my native language (French for ground is "sol").

  15. Re:ALL UAV's can be taken out with direct energy.. by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

    Unless they invented laser proof UAV's....

    Then we would just switch to phasers.

  16. This is pure BullSlash. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    First of all this article is not even talking about Military drones!
    From the article.
    ""You can walk all over [the Parrot AR Drone] with frequency-hopping spread spectrum ... you can fly a radio plane near an AR drone and it will very quickly get packet loss," MacIntosh said."

    eww you can jam a toy.... Really Slashdot you are now the National Enquire.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  17. Did anyone even read this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is sensationalist garbage. This has nothing to do with military drones. The "researcher" was talking about a consumer product called an AR.Drone . Drone is merely part of the name and has little to do with the function of the device.

    Actually I own one and it is merely an rc multirotor aircraft with autolocation stabilization that is controled from an apple iphone or andriod tablet.

    There was a recently released gps module that allows you to program it with a route.

    This garbage article is akin to writing about a new samsung phone and confusing it for a story about autonomous humanoid robots. Android

    1. Re:Did anyone even read this article? by tommyatomic · · Score: 1

      Say it aint so. A researcher proclaiming that consumer tech is susceptible to interference that it is required to be susceptible to by the fcc.

      OH GAWD the humanity; sensationalism in the news!!!!!!!!

      Seriously the 1st gen AR.Drone had issues not auto-crashing into walls.

      The newest version (AR.Drone2.0) has a module called a flight recorder that is just a usb GPS used to program waypoints on a route or automatically send it home.

      Sure you could interfere with GPS. By that same logic you could get people to take the wrong freeway exit if they are too dumb pay attention to where they are going.

      I must agree with your point about this:

      >

      This garbage article is akin to writing about a new samsung phone and confusing it for a story about autonomous humanoid robots. Android

    2. Re:Did anyone even read this article? by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      with the state of the NZ military, I'm surprised it's not just one of those plastic toys you launch by pulling a zip cord, in fact I'm sure our military's rifles are just pellet guns with a plastic body kit.

  18. "Directed Energy Weapons" by Tifer · · Score: 1

    ..will never not make me think of lasers

    1. Re:"Directed Energy Weapons" by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      It was a letdown for me too. I was thinking more "plasma rifle." Awwww MICRO-wave : P

    2. Re:"Directed Energy Weapons" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..will never not make me think of lasers

      Drones are vulnerable against sharks with lasers! Who ever thought!
      A new asset in surface-to-air anti-aircraft warfare!

  19. UAVs can be downed by a directed energy weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, like a rocket launcher? ;)

  20. It's not exactly a competition in accuracy... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...with a single bullet.

    They will more likely be willing to simultaneously empty several clips of several automatic rifles in the general direction of the target.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  21. Old school anti-drone technology by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Just send up a territorial crow!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  22. Drone-downing Awards by AlienSexist · · Score: 1

    Special drone-downing awards by category

    Primitive Weaponry: bow & arrow, bola, net/sein, and rocks
    Animal-Assisted: pigeons, seagulls, or trained hunting raptors (hawks, falcons, etc.).
    Innovative: laser pointers, mirrors & sunlight deathrays, RC toy, other.
    The Force: verbal command, hand gesture

  23. Great Wikipedia reference by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The link takes you to Directed Energy Weapons; the only instance of HERF is a link to an empty page that takes you back from whence you came. There is no definition of the acronym on either page.

    So thanks for the enlightenment.

  24. But can the operator... by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

    But can the operator... use his cell phone during take off and landing?

  25. Pew pew! by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    I guess it's a good thing that the holodeck safeties are on, otherwise the phasers I replicated up would be FATAL to these drones.

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
  26. Trivia Question by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Directed Energy Weapons?

    Name a weapon that is not directed energy?

    Most fall into the Kinetic verity I would think.

    Poison maybe? Then again, this is probably because I really lack an understanding of how poisons generally work. After all that's a woman's weapon amiright? And we all know how direct they can be... ;)

  27. So? by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Bullets are also tiny - but there are many of them.
    And as long as the coordinates of some of them overlap with those "57 cm across"...

    5 guys with AKs can create a bullet ridden area that will quickly cover those 57 cm and more.
    Don't think of it as sharpshooting - think flak.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  28. Hardening is just a question of more money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of these problems are already solved, they just make your equipment more expensive.