Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Border Patrol Drone Goes Down, Rest of Fleet Grounded

coondoggie writes "The U.S. Customs and Border Protection service said today it has grounded its nine remaining unmanned aircraft after one of them was forced to ditch in the Pacific Ocean. The unmanned aircraft had an unknown mechanical failure while on patrol off the southern California coast. The crew determined that it wouldn't make it back to Sierra Vista, Arizona, 'and put the aircraft down in the water.' The drone cost about $12 million. 'The Predator B, also known as the MQ-9 Reaper in the U.S. Air Force, can fly as many as 27 hours and reach an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,240 meters), according to the website of Poway, California-based General Atomics. It has a wingspan of 66 feet (20 meters) and can carry more than 3,000 pounds (1,361 kilograms) of cameras, weapons or other payload, according to the company.'"

138 comments

  1. ...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone else read that as "of 3,000 pounds of cocaine, weapons or other payload"?

    1. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just figured it was carrying your mother.

    2. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

      mother-in-law

    3. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You marry your sister, it's hard to know how to introduce the family, oy!

    4. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone else read that as "of 1,361 kilos of cocaine, weapons or other payload"?

      FTFY

    5. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when the Mexican cartels get some of these, they can ferry in about 20 people, or 1360 kilos of cocaine at a drop. Nice! :tongue-in-cheek:

    6. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Anyone else read that as "of 1,361 kilos of cocaine, weapons or other payload"?

      FTFY

      The extra 1 kg was for the baggies, so he didn't include it in the total cocaine weight.

    7. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the border patrol would risk a turf war with the CIA?

      Narco territory battles can get ugly...

    8. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it as "So glad big hunks of metal with blades are falling all around us."

    9. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're from Tennessee too?!

    10. Re:...and can carry more than 3,000 pounds by fisted · · Score: 1

      Like I would read this far into the summary. What fucking kind of neckbeard are you taking me for?

  2. Chow Call!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder who will get there first.

  3. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few months back when a drone went down in the Great Lakes region, didn't the government say something along the lines of, "Don't worry about it. It was just a drill. We have no plan to have drones flying over US air space," or am I just mis-remembering things?

    1. Re:So... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Freedom is truth, citizen.

      --
      No sig today...
  4. Pacific, or Arizona ? by bob_super · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a shame that San Diego is now so huge that there isn't a single spot to land between the pacific and Arizona...

    1. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, I call bullshit.

      No one puts down a 12 million dollar drone in the Pacific because it couldn't make it several hundred miles inland instead of just landing it somewhere ... like say any one of the many airports military or otherwise they had to choose from.

      Or you fly it over some unpopulated beach and land it on the beach, or okay, so the camera's went out, you put a spotter aircraft on it and follow it home using the spotter for visuals.

      They didn't make a 'choice' to put it down in the ocean, it fucking crashed.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know, it reads like that for me too. But if your UAV is going down, you ditch it the nearest place where it's unlikely to hit people.

    3. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they put it 'down' to enhance their budget for next year. no individual in any agency in any government in the US is monetarily rewarded by coming in under budget.

    4. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I live in San Diego. They should have crashed it into my bed so I can go back in time through a baby universe and converse with a big ugly rabbit named Frank.

    5. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that bounty in some city in Colorado would apply here?

    6. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      I would believe crashing somewhere in reach of a recovery crew if they were trying to get to an airport and it was apparent it was not going to get over land, no matter where it is based. My first guess is a mangled statement from the sound bite generators.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    7. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I live in San Diego. They should have crashed it into my bed so I can go back in time through a baby universe and converse with a big ugly rabbit named Frank.

      I don't think that worked out so well for Donnie in the end.

    8. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that San Diego is now so huge that there isn't a single spot to land between the pacific and Arizona...

      RTFA.....

      It's based out of Arizona but was patrolling the sea off the California coast, as it was designed to do.

    9. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Funny

      Drone: Confirmation on armament of payload?
      Pilot: Cancel armament
      Drone: Armament confirmed. Target 48 miles and closing.
      Pilot: CANCEL TARGET
      Drone: Confirmed, Arming warhead.
      Pilot: Warhead?!? Cancel Target!!!
      Drone: Nuclear detonation will destroy drone, confirm?
      Pilot: Nuclear? What?!?! Putting her down!!!

      *giggles from outside control room*

      Pilots friends: Dude we totally got you!! You thought it was going to launch a nuke!!! Hahahaha! Did you piss yourself?!?! Hahahaha!
      Pilot: No, I put her down in the pacific.
      *Pilots ex-friends back slowly out of the room*

    10. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He got a girlfriend out of it, which is more than can be said for most Slashdotters, so who am I to complain?

    11. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that San Diego is now so huge that there isn't a single spot to land between the pacific and Arizona...

      RTFA.....

      It's based out of Arizona but was patrolling the sea off the California coast, as it was designed to do.

      I read TFA (both of them) and they say pretty much the same thing as the summary (and what you said). They crashed it into the ocean because it couldn't make it back to San Diego.

      But surely there's some airport or deserted stretch of land in the 100 - 200 miles between the ocean and Arizona where they could have landed the $12M piece of equipment? Now maybe they lost control of the drone and were forced to crash it, but neither article says so.

    12. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      They didn't specify what the problem was. It could have been anything from typical aircraft problems, to specialty drone problems. Failed powerplant (i.e., engine broke). Failed aerodynamic surfaces. Failed airframe during high stress maneuver. Inadvertent intersection of flight path with birds.

      Or the drone specific problems. Computer failure(s). Uplink failure(s). Intersection of bird with the camera.

      Their options may have been very limited. An intentional crash into the water (full throttle, nose down) could mitigate some risk of recovery.

      I would think crashing it into empty desert would have been preferred for recovery of all the parts. Maybe making it to the desert may not have been practical.

      And, all in all, it's only a few million dollars. It's the gov't, they have plenty of money. {sigh}

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Can you just imagine the shitstorm if a crippled drone crashed into a populated area? Or the embarrassment if it crashed in the middle of nowhere and a drug lord managed to get to it first?

    14. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was thinking ditching it may have been a deliberate choice to keep it out of the hands of the American public. Just imagine some hackers getting to the wreckage first and disassembling the electronics and optics to learn its true capabilities.

      If you're going to rely on a secret weapon to keep the bad guys guessing, you have to keep it secret.

      --
      John
    15. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      City? Deer Trail is 500 people living in one square mile around a truck stop.

    16. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Except she didn't remember him and/or none of it really happened. And from his perspective she was shot and killed and then he was crushed by a jet engine that fell from the plane his mother was on.

      I suppose, " 'tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

    17. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I lost 12 million dollars the other day, too. No biggie, I'll just ask for another 25 mill to help fix things. -Unk Sam.

    18. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they didn't have the choice to land it normally. If the drone will crash, it's better to crash it where there are no people rather than say, the middle of San Diego.

      This is not a hypothetical situation that has never happened before. For example, a passenger jet made an emergency landing in the Hudson River in New York City in 2009. That beat running the plane through a building or belly flopping on a crowded street.

    19. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just hang out in a bar in Poway California. You can just ask anyone who looks like they make more than $40k & less than $120k. If they don't build the things currently, they did previously or know someone who does.

    20. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking for narco-subs with synthetic aperture radar then... I wonder if I can pick up those microwaves on my SDR?

    21. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      Oops, I forgot to say that part. :) They don't want some civilian, or worse a foreign intelligence agency, getting a hold of one.

      Ditching in the desert, or ditching in the ocean, as long as it's a hard impact, would scatter pieces. In the ocean, it's much harder to find them and try to figure out how they went together. It's also harder to collect the pieces so others won't find them.

      On land, depending on where it hit and who was there, parts or all of it could be retrieved before gov't folks arrived. It would be worse, if it crashed somewhere populated (like downtown San Diego), or somewhere it wouldn't easily returned (like Mexico). The later risks an international incident.

      I suspect they opted for water instead of land because of the 2008 F/A-18 crash in San Diego, and others. People get all upset when an airplane crashes in their city.

      I'm surprised they don't have pyrotechnics on-board to remove any sensitive equipment. Looking at this report on another crash, they had to go to the crash site to collect the good bits. This one, regarding the same type aircraft says they don't have self-destruct mechanisms, but can wipe their storage if instructed to.

      I would have thought a way to make the aircraft a pile of worthless scrap before it hits the ground would have been one of the first things they put on when they decided these would be in a recon/combat role.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    22. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You call BS? That's because you don't know what you are talking about. Take off and landings are performed by pilots and pretty much the only thing that's preferable to do autonomously. Just like commercial aviation most of the flying is done on autopilot.

      It's standard operating procedure that if a drone loses contact with the pilot/ground station it will loiter at a designated way point. If it can't reestablish communications withing a designated amount of time it does a controlled decent. Where is the safest, least populated place to land when you can't be certain exactly where you are? The ocean.

    23. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Depending on exactly what problem they had, it may have been an absolutely correct decision to put it down where it wouldn't hurt anyone. That is one of the big advantages of drones, you can ditch them without killing the pilot.

      There is a lot of empty space in San Diego,but there are a lot of crowded areas as well.

      12 mil is a lot, but not huge compared to the total budget, and better than killing someone - at least politically.

    24. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at GA, programming the ground station these things are piloted from. All the tech is publicly available, and the secret part, the source code, is such that we all hoped our state enemies would get ahold of it, as it would set the state of their art back ten years, at least!

    25. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crashing and landing are two different things.

    26. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one puts down a 12 million dollar drone in the Pacific because it couldn't make it several hundred miles inland instead of just landing it somewhere

      Sure they do. It crashed, so it had to be Put Down, like a dog ya know?

    27. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very touching that you think typing commands in uppercase makes them more imperative

    28. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that bounty in some city in Colorado would apply here?

      You do know that isn't actually real, right? Just checking.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    29. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But he still got a girlfriend!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You never flew with United, did you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck off, retard.

    32. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So TFA provides minimal info on the actual malfunction, but that's enough for you to jump in and play armchair drone pilot. Yay slashdot!

    33. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Doitroygsbre · · Score: 1

      I doubt that this is a budget busting scheme, those usually come out in June and July. When I was in the Air Force (late 90s) in Oklahoma, we had a puzzling issue where January was the month where we had the most at workplace accidents and property damage. We never found a good reason for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was just an accident where the plane was dropped into the ocean instead of risking bringing it across a populated area. Plus I would imagine that these things are pretty weather resistant. If it is set down gently in the ocean, the data on it may very well be recoverable, the same wouldn't be true if it slammed into a house or a mountain.

      --
      There in no religion higher than truth.
    34. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the tech is publicly available, and the secret part, the source code, is such that we all hoped our state enemies would get ahold of it, as it would set the state of their art back ten years, at least!

      ^ So much this!

    35. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by meaty · · Score: 1

      Quite reasonable that the drone could have been carrying a bomb.

    36. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Even without a bomb, I gather these are heavy and fast enough to cause a bit of damage to normal civilian property and people.

    37. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I know it's not real, (the drone hunting license part), but do the folks around Deer Trail know it?

    38. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I know it's not real, (the drone hunting license part), but do the folks around Deer Trail know it?

      Yes. Which is why their city council won't even entertain the idea, and it's just one guy there who's selling cheesy certificates online.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    39. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shouldn't be surprising. In the business of government, failure is usually rewarded with more revenue -- quite unlike what happens in private business (when it's your own money on the line).

    40. Re:Pacific, or Arizona ? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I just got this image of some duck hunter holding something that looks like a part of the down drone and in the other hand is the cheesy certificate; with a big toothy grin.

  5. WTF? by samantha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do we need such powerful military grade drones just to keep tabs on illegal aliens crossing our borders? A bunch of cheap quadcopters with infrared and other cameras could do the job.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can fly as many as 27 hours

      Do you seriously want to claim that "bunch of cheap quadcopters ... could do the job"?

    2. Re:WTF? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      For $12 million each, I'd like those drones to stay aloft for a year before needing to come down for refueling and service, and remain in service for a decade or more.

    3. Re:WTF? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" S.R. Hadden

      Does anyone think that Moller has been embarssed enough lately?

    4. Re:WTF? by whois · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having played with cheap quadcopters, I feel there is a valid answer to this.

      Their battery life is shit and turbulence ruins any chance of it being a stable platform for imaging. Even if you fix it so they hover okay you'll still have issues having it follow a vehicle. Granted I'm not sure how well the drones they're using cope with any of this either.

      Also you gotta remember they're not looking for people crossing the border, they're looking for drugs. Or any other high value target that gets them money or press. If they saw an individual crossing a border they would probably just phone the local PD to check it out. It sounds like they're tailing boats and cars with the drones.

    5. Re:WTF? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why do we need such powerful military grade drones just to keep tabs on illegal aliens crossing our borders?

      The fact that it ditched in the water while patrolling off the southern coast is a good indication that it was not patrolling for illegal immigrants, but rather for drug smugglers. They are very sophisticated, using not only fast boats, but also submarines. And the pacific ocean is way too big to patrol with toy quadrocopters.

    6. Re:WTF? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More accurately how many border patrol agents would that $12 million have paid for? Of course the answer would be but where are the corporate profits in those government employed border patrol agents. Perhaps the US government could privatise border patrol, you know, like a bounty per illegal immigrant. Then corporations could set up operations around the US and bus, ship and fly in illegal immigrants for a token payment, 'er' catch them and return them, create new identities for them and rinse and repeat. After all when corporations contract services to government it is all about the privatised profits and absolutely nothing to do with providing an actual service.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:WTF? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Why do we need such powerful military grade drones just to keep tabs on illegal aliens crossing our borders? A bunch of cheap quadcopters with infrared and other cameras could do the job.

      You wouldn't want General Atomics to think that their stock price is dependent on keeping us involved in shithole sand-traps, would you?

    8. Re:WTF? by PPH · · Score: 1

      I was thinking along the lines of a Cessna 172 with pilot and observer. Or a couple to fly in shifts if 27 hours is important.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:WTF? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Hokay. 1 Predator = 12mil/27 flight hours. Subtract 3 hrs for takeoff/landing and getting on station for 24 hrs, so you get 2 hrs aloft/ 1 million = 500k/hr.
      1 Cessna = 200k (or so).
      No brainer, right? Wrong: A Cessna has a range of (guessing) 1000km for about 5 hours aloft/fuel tank. Count the takeoff, etc, and now you're down to 2-3 hrs aloft. So that's 50k /hr. So if you want 24 hours of coverage, you need at least three Cessnas to overlap, so now you're up to 150k /hr. If you want to have the same service ceiling as the Predator, each plane probably will cost 500k for something beefier, so you've more than doubled the cost, and your 150k/hr for three planes turns into ~400k/hr. This is already close to a Predator B.

      Now let's add the fact that the Predator has a 3000lb optical surveillance package already built in. You're Cessna carries 4-6 passengers, depending on whether you've bought the 200k one of the 500k one, which is only (let's be generous) 1000lb of payload, not counting the pilot. And the you actually have to buy flight qualified surveillence equipment that you can bolt to the bottom/side of your plane without hosing its flight performance.

      Big optics are expensive. Infrared and night vision cameras are more expensive. Going from my own experience, a package like the one on a Predator B, even if you bought all the parts and built it yourself, can easily run upwards of 150k per plane, not including integration costs. And you need to pay for three of them (one per plane). So if you've paid 200k for the plane, you're up to 350k, and if you've paid 400k, your up to 550k for two flight hours.

      That's more expensive than a small manned airplane.

    10. Re:WTF? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Doh! The manned airplane is more expensive than the *unmanned* airplane.

    11. Re:WTF? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Still, I would want whatever asset I pay $12 million for to last at least one year. If it fell into the ocean then I'd be extremely interested in seeing if I could get the manufacturer to refund my money or replace the defective asset. I would certainly make sure that I had a trained and qualified employee using that asset as well, lest it be flown into a hillside by accident. In other words, one should get their money's worth.

      If we have too many lost drones then the Cessna alternative might be less expensive.

    12. Re:WTF? by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Cheap multicopters have come a long way. While battery life is still a concern, hovering in strong winds is not. Combine that with an anti-vibration system and get very smooth imaging.

      The battery issue is solved by using aeroplanes, which use far less energy to stay airborne, and instead of hovering, circling the target.

      --
      Be relentless!
    13. Re:WTF? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Since it was far enough out to sea that getting it back to land was problematic, it was probably patrolling for drug runners, not illegal aliens. Those guys in the home built one-shot subs bringing in the Columbia coke, a thousand kilos at a time.

      --
      Will
    14. Re:WTF? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to integrate a marine radar and optical/infrared sensor ball into your Cessna.

    15. Re:WTF? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Like this?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they could use nearby boats as bases and have a swarm of small copters/planes to cover a lot of area at once. When (if) they spot druggies they can Zerg rush.

      Surely somebody can find a way to build something for more than $toy yet still less than $12,000,000.

    17. Re:WTF? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Subtract 3 hrs for takeoff/landing and getting on station for 24 hrs, so you get 2 hrs aloft/ 1 million = 500k/hr.

      Are you grasping the fact that they don't throw out each Predator after its first use? Sometimes they get to use them two, maybe even three times.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:WTF? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The battery issue is solved by using aeroplanes, which use far less energy to stay airborne, and instead of hovering, circling the target.

      Which sill doesn't get you anything CLOSE to the ability to take off, travel hundreds of miles carrying extremely sophisticated (and heavy) optical/coms gear, and to work in the area for 24 hours non-stop.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:WTF? by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      But less military spending is bad for the economy, right?

      Right?

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    20. Re:WTF? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So I guess those subs now have AAA batteries?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:WTF? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Looking at the state the US is in, I can't really say that MORE military spending is good for it either.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:WTF? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      GA is privately owned by Neal Blue. There is no stock.

    23. Re:WTF? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Read up on it.

      The Columbian cartels have been developing diesel powered fiberglass hulled subs with snorkels that can remain submerged for long distances, like South America to California waters. They do not go deep, but they go deep enough that they are undetectable. They are quite fast. They are disposable: once the cargo is transferred to a fishing boat or pleasure boat close to USA shores, the sub is scuttled. Looking for the telltale of the snorkel must be like looking for a mechanical dolphin in the waves-- a good task for a drone that can stay on station and compare images taken every two minutes or so; an almost impossible task for a human observer.

      Presumably the NSA knows a lot about when and where these boats are launched and when and where the rendezvous would be: that is perhaps the only good defense for what the NSA is doing with its phone taps. BUT it seems like the NSA does a better job of tracking when and where you are playing Angry Birds than in getting info on big drug deals. Stupid NSA.

      --
      Will
    24. Re:WTF? by swb · · Score: 1

      Is there something in between a full-on Predator and a battery powered quadrocopter? A gas powered quadrocopter for increased range and better sensor payload?

    25. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Predator is one of the larger (it is about the size of a Cessna 172, maybe a slightly larger wingspan even) UAVs (an RPV to be specific, it is not a "drone" as the military classifies things), with a higher ceiling and longer range than most others; there are plenty of smaller fixed-wing, shorter-range models to pick from than the Predator.

      Also, that oversized lawnmower engine it uses does have a tendency to seize at the worst possible times; probably because it gets pushed to the duration limit far more often than a piloted aircraft.

    26. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More accurately how many border patrol agents would that $12 million have paid for?

      None. Well, at least none that can fly.

      Perhaps the US government could privatise border patrol, you know, like a bounty per illegal immigrant.

      Yeah, because having a bunch of bounty hunters running around works out so well.

    27. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you grasping the fact that they don't throw out each Predator after its first use? Sometimes they get to use them two, maybe even three times.

      Citation Needed

    28. Re:WTF? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hilarious.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    29. Re:WTF? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Heh, I don't really know the specifics. I would be surprised if the Cessna can even generate enough electricity for the marine radar in question, or lift it, or fly high enough to use it to capacity. But there's no doubt you could cover a lot more ground with a Cessna with an IR camera like that, than just driving around in a patrol boat for example.

  6. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    They're not deporting illegals. Anyone with political pull is on the verge of letting a bunch of known law breakers become citizens while law abiding immigrants are getting thrown under the bus. Just more federal government arm flexing with no real action and certainly no positive results.
     
    This country is fucked.

    1. Re:Why bother? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      But think of the contracts and the kick-backs. You're missing the BIG picture.

    2. Re:Why bother? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Down let the door hit you in the back side on way out. XD

      Administrative Note: the fence at the U.S. border is the dumbest design ever, it's not built to keep anyone in; It's kind of built to you out, in some places.

    3. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ur Engrish r good

  7. Grounded, you say? by dohzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks for the heads up; see you on the other side.

  8. Oddly enough by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    It will likely take a crash into a heavily populated area before drones are regulated much.

    Has it occurred to the government how deadly effective these new toys could be in the wrong hands?

    It's Superbowl week, just saying...

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Oddly enough by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I have trouble just keeping track of all the blimps during superbowl week, and now I have to worry about drones too?

    2. Re:Oddly enough by turkeydance · · Score: 2

      already been done: BlackSunday...http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075765/

    3. Re:Oddly enough by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Imagine a couple of dozen drones waiting in a couple of dozen garages just a few miles from the Super Bowl. They're all launched at the same time and they're all carrying explosives. It wouldn't take long for them to reach their target. Can we expect the security in and around the stadium to stop all of them? That's why I'm not going to the game. Call it self-preservation. Too many nutcases in the world and just too risky.

    4. Re:Oddly enough by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      That's why I'm not going to the game. Call it self-preservation.

      Or paranoia.

      Too many nutcases in the world and just too risky.

      ...said the TSA as they asked for a doubling of their funding.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Stuxnet redux by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was Iran (or a Mexican cartel) busting the RSA-based encryption that scared the Border Patrol.
    One hundred twenty million dollars for 10 drones. It probably came out of the US' food stamp budget.

  10. Exactly whose hands qualify as "the wrong" hands.. by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 1

    Please complete this sentence:
    I think they already [are/are not] in the wrong hands.

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
  11. Sabotage?.. by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If sabotaging one border-patrolling drone grounds all the rest of them, what better way to help those poor aliens sneak into the US — illegally?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  12. Forget not Hanlon's shaving gear by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The article (I know, right?) claims the cost of each Predator B is $18 Million.

    A Predator B belonging to Customs flew into a hillside near Nogales, AZ in 2006 after an operator inadvertently shut off the plane's engine trying to repair a radio-link failure.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Forget not Hanlon's shaving gear by PPH · · Score: 2

      But its just a PC with a joystick. Turning my PC off and then back on always fixes it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Forget not Hanlon's shaving gear by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      And what idiot writes software that says, yep, I will allow engine off command, in the middle of flight, with out a tripple confirmation sequence as a fail safe.

      $18 million of rip off , probably cost the company $120k to build, with $50k salaries. Nice profit.

      DUDE, buy a 2nd hand gulf air jet for $2m, retrofit it with a laptop + sat link remote control = drone on the cheap with range of 9000 miles.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  13. Re:Exactly whose hands qualify as "the wrong" hand by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    Well, considering he notes that it's Superbowl week, I was thinking of San Francisco 49ers fans.

  14. Anti-drone drone by hawguy · · Score: 2

    How long until the Mexican drug cartels start contracting out for anti-drone drones?

    If $10,000 buys an anti-drone drone, it would be a cheap way to take out a $12M drone and rack up huge expenses on the American side.

    Amateurs have already built a 366mph jet powered UAV (faster than the MQ-9 drone) - I'm sure on the international black market, better quality drones are already available. And they get bonus PR points if they can get the drone to crash on a populated area (or truck the remains of the crashed drone to a populated area) showing what a menace they are.

    1. Re:Anti-drone drone by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Isn't an 'anti-drone drone' called a 'surface to air missile'?

    2. Re:Anti-drone drone by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If $10,000 buys an anti-drone drone,

      Surface to air missile? Like a stinger... costs around $40k??

      Question is could it hit a drone? Military doing a strike...or surveillance? Hard to say.

      Border patrol tailing civilians and cars... yeah I think maybe.

    3. Re:Anti-drone drone by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If $10,000 buys an anti-drone drone,

      Surface to air missile? Like a stinger... costs around $40k??

      Question is could it hit a drone? Military doing a strike...or surveillance? Hard to say.

      Border patrol tailing civilians and cars... yeah I think maybe.

      I assumed that traditional SAM's were out of reach for many organizations, but some guy in his basement could create a jet powered UAV for not a lot of money. Add a detonator to unfurl some wire cable, and you don't even need a direct hit to foul the propeller on a prop driven drone like the MQ-9.

    4. Re:Anti-drone drone by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If $10,000 buys an anti-drone drone,

      Surface to air missile? Like a stinger... costs around $40k??

      Question is could it hit a drone? Military doing a strike...or surveillance? Hard to say.

      Border patrol tailing civilians and cars... yeah I think maybe.

      And given the height at which drones fly, you'll need something bigger than a Stinger (or a much cheaper SA-7). An SA 7 has a flight ceiling of 2,500 m and max range of 5 KM.

      You could probably get some SA 2's relatively cheap (not sure how cheap, my black market contacts aren't what they used to be) but good luck hiding an SA2 launch site and accompanying RADAR array.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Anti-drone drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill the operators. It's much cheaper.

    6. Re:Anti-drone drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're called surface to air missiles. Most useful for this would be man-portable air defence systems (MANPADs). Apparently, you can buy a Strela-2 (SA-7 Grail) launcher and missile from the black market (PDF link) for US$5000 to $10,000.

  15. "The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!" by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    It was the Tijuana Air Defense Network.

    Horale Vatos!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  16. Drone went down by jennatalia · · Score: 0

    Went down to smell the fish.

  17. 20 mi SW of San Diego? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's right about the Coronado Islands which are in the waters of Mexico. Was the drone operating at sea? Perhaps looking for high speed pangas running pot and cocaine to California? If they were flying over the border on land, why couldn't they have landed at Halsey Field or Miramar NAS?

  18. Makinh something out of nothing, by westlake · · Score: 1

    It's a shame that San Diego is now so huge that there isn't a single spot to land between the pacific and Arizona...

    Customs and Border Protection says the drone was on a border security mission when a mechanical problem developed about 20 miles southwest of San Diego late Monday night. Spokesman Mike Friel says the crew operating the drone from Texas decided to crash it in the ocean.

    The $12 million surveillance drone was one of 10 that Homeland Security uses to patrol the border with Mexico. It was just one of two Predator B drones equipped with radar specifically designed to be used over the ocean.

    Friel says the cause of the mechanical failure is unknown and that the remainder of the drone fleet has been temporarily grounded while the investigation into the incident continues.

    DHS Drone Crashes Into Pacific off Calif Coast

    The second direction the design took was the "Predator B-003", referred to by GA as the "Altair", which has a new airframe with an 84-foot (25.6 m) wingspan and a takeoff weight of about 7,000 pounds (3,175 kg). Like the Predator B-001, it is powered by a TP-331-10T turboprop. This variant has a payload capacity of 3,000 pounds (1,360 kg), a maximum ceiling of 52,000 feet (15.8 km), and an endurance of 36 hours.

    General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper

    Ten tons. 36 hours. If your control of the aircraft is compromised, you bring it down over the water.

  19. Cost by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [commie]

    Wonder how many school lunches you could have served to poor kids for twelve million dollars.

    [/commie]

    1. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder how many lives get ruined by illicit drugs. It's like saying the government could save money by closing schools and police stations.

    2. Re:Cost by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      A large number of lives ruined by illicit drugs are ruined because the government spends a huge amount of money to ruin them. Stop spending money to throw people in jail over minor drug infractions, or money driving people away from getting help for their problems (for fear of jail), or money spent driving addicts to ever-more-harmful worst-case toxic concoctions, and those illicit drugs will ruin many fewer lives.

    3. Re:Cost by SacredNaCl · · Score: 4, Informative

      A large number of lives ruined by illicit drugs are ruined because the government spends a huge amount of money to ruin them. Stop spending money to throw people in jail over minor drug infractions, or money driving people away from getting help for their problems (for fear of jail), or money spent driving addicts to ever-more-harmful worst-case toxic concoctions, and those illicit drugs will ruin many fewer lives.

      Probably far more lives are ruined due to their illegality than if we simply had stopped at the pure food and drug act, and left it at that.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    4. Re:Cost by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Go back to Russia, com-! Oh, you did that one already.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Cost by wjh31 · · Score: 1

      if you do lunch for say $2 each, then you could get 6 million lunches, which covers about a third of all the poor children in the us for one meal for one day. (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/)

    6. Re:Cost by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      driving addicts to ever-more-harmful worst-case toxic concoctions

      Addicts drive themselves there, because they're no longer getting what they're looking for out of lighter-weight drugs. Do you actually know any addicts? I'm guessing not.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, users don't want toxic lab shit instead of the real thing. Are you retarded?

      He's talking about things like fake Pot. You can legally sell that in stores, then kids get siezures. How often does this happen with real pot?

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

      Probably far more lives are ruined due to their illegality than if we simply had stopped at the pure food and drug act, and left it at that.

      What lives would those be? I hear this garbage so often, but I can't imagine that you're operating with functional metrics to come to this conclusion. Whose lives are negatively affected by the war on drugs? Junkies and chronic rulebreakers. Whose lives benefit from laws against drugs? Law-abiders with propensity for addiction (at least 2.4 million americans fall into this category e.g. people that abuse drugs they can obtain legally).

    9. Re:Cost by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Thirty-one million Americans, about 10% of the population, has been arrested on drug charges --- that makes your 2.4M potential abusers seem pretty small. The US prison state --- with the world's highest incarceration rate --- is an unprecedented machine for destroying the lives of citizens. The free world manages to have similar or better drug-related health outcomes to the US, without mass incarceration of their general population.

    10. Re:Cost by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Are you retarded?

      No, but you're obviously in 8th grade. Please shut down your web browser and study a little bit before your mom tucks you in tonight, OK?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to write something really derogatory about Obama but this story just rocks shit loads.

    Yea, like, i'm really sorry.

  21. WOW! $12 million ??? by careysb · · Score: 1

    You can buy a whole load of DJI Phantoms for that price. Quantity over quality.

    1. Re:WOW! $12 million ??? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And since you can keep a Phantom in the air for about 15 minutes, you'd need (using calculatore...) 108 of them for that same 27 hour mission. Sort of like getting nine women on that baby project so you can get it done in only one month, right?

      Even the "serious" small UAV's just can't come close to dealing with the weather, altitude, speed, and the rest that those big beasts are designed to handle. I'm almost surprised that they only cost $12m.

      Airplanes crash. It's going to happen. Can't make up for that, in some situations, by using lots of tiny ones.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  22. Guess these thing really are going to replace the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airforce.

  23. Because aerospace welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quadcopters wouldn't make nearly as much money for the aerospace industry as $12million/copy drones.

  24. Somewhere out there... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...a licensed drone hunter is celebrating and punching his tag. Too bad he won't be able to retrieve and field dress his kill.

  25. Ummmmm...no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MQ-9 Reaper is NOT the same thing as a Predator. It's the same air frame and base configuration, but they are very different craft. The MQ-9 has a 900HP engine, where as the Pred has a 115HP. The Reaper can go about twice as far, twice as fast. The predator has about a 2,000lb payload capacity while the Reaper clocks in at over 10,000lb. Finally, and most importantly, all of this extra power and payload capacity comes into play because the Reaper is a weapons platform, carrying everything form air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles to JDAMs. A Reaper is an all out killing machine. The day that any US Dept or Agency starts flying Reapers around US airspace on patrol, short of us having been invaded, is the day we have a very, very big problem on our hands.

    1. Re:Ummmmm...no. by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      The MQ-9 Reaper is also known as a Predator-B. It is an evolution from the MQ-1 Predator (the "Predator-A"), but they do not have the same airframe. Their planform is similar, but easily distinguishable by the up- or down-sweep of the tail - MQ-1 is down, MQ-9 is up.

  26. I just want to say to whoever is responsible... by shikaisi · · Score: 1

    Good shooting!

    --
    No left turn unstoned.
  27. Bering Sea Gold. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Screw dredging for gold.... If one of these suckers is worth 18 million bucks, I'm diving for that!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  28. ask the cia by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    They should just ask the cia for the drugs, the CIA is the biggest importer you know.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  29. terminate all old people by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    All the old farts over 60yo need zero voting rights.

    They had their day, free stuff, they dont deserve to vote, because they have had their life and dont need to contribute to the voting future that needs to be controlled by us younger smarter new generations.

    Stupid govt silver heads, utter dumb asses.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.