Slashdot Mirror
Analyzing the US Air Force's New "Portable Hobby Drone Disruptors" Solicitation (vortex.com)
Lauren Weinstein writes: The U.S. Air Force has just issued a solicitation for a radio-based 'Portable Anti Drone Defense' system — essentially a remote drone disruption device that can be easily used by someone familiar with — well — shooting guns. The Air Force wants three units to start with. Delivery required 30 days after awarding of the contract. It does indeed make for interesting reading, and I thought it might be instructive to dig into the technical details a bit ...
Can't they just use a shotgun?
So the military wants a device that violates the conditions and implied license associated with the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands eh?
Does the US military have the authority to defy other government agencies such as the FCC and the FAA?
I've heard shotguns suggested for avoiding collateral damage in general, because shot doesn't have the range or ricochet of a regular bullet.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
kinda/sorta like this? http://www.firequest.com/G12-0...
Works best if you point it at the drone operators.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Consumer level drones doesn't really mean just off the shelf ready to fly. Hobby drones can have thier entire flight plan loaded before taking off, fly the route, and return without even transmitting or receiving radio signals in flight. The control computer can also encrypt its communication and take updates in flight encrypted so jamming a signal or broadcasting a stronger one will not be enough in all cases.
You will basically need to jam a signal so powerful that it floods the circuitry and interrupts the control signals in the drone itself. And it will also need to defeat shielding in the process too.
That would be a shotgun based 'Portable Anti Drone Defense' system
On a computer!
I'll take my patent now, please...
Which is here:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=op...
Used to be that folks had the courtesy to do that, even though of course we understand that you want to drive traffic to your blog.
Re: other comments on shotgunning the things, (sounds like fun, but might do more harm than good if they fall in the wrong place), what they actually want is to disable the active control of the buggers:
"The Air Force Global Strike Command is requesting three (3) systems to counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), also commonly known as personal drones. There are three main areas in counter UAS (cUAS): detect, identify and defeat. This system should address the defeat portion. This portion needs to disrupt the control link between a commercial UAS and the pilot causing the UAS to fall into its preprogrammed "lost link" protocol. The system should provide the additional ability to disrupt the UAS's ability to receive and use satellite navigation signals (GPS and GLONASS) for navigation purposes."
Urm, maybe the latter might cause some hilarity if you're using it around an (air)port...
Also, loved this part:
"The system must have the below attributes:
Low complexity: no software, no firmware"
So they want this hard-wired from transistors, or better-still valves?
HAM radio boys everywhere, fire up your breadboards!
A happy and peaceful Christmas to all...