Airbus Rolls Out Anti-Drone System (networkworld.com)

What could go wrong? by dunkindave · 2016-01-06 10:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Seems like a perfect plan. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:What could go wrong? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-01-06 11:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Against idiots and casual would-be malefactors who don't know what the hell they are doing, I assume that(while dubiously FCC approved in any case, and likely to interest Uncle Sam if it involves too much GPS-monkeying) jamming the drone's control link would work reasonably well.

Against someone who is expecting to be jammed, I'd assume that the drone's default behavior would be 'fly toward the strongest RF source if you lose connection with manual control' and the jammer would be a nice handy beacon.to head right into as fast as possible.
Re:What could go wrong? by He+Who+Has+No+Name · 2016-01-06 12:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Or, you know, set up an internal navigation system that is either based on image recognition using preloaded images compared to a downwards-facing camera, or onboard inertial / laser ring gyros.
Lose contact with the encrypted command and control source? Switch to internal nav or mission profile and continue with Plan B.
The jamming paradigm is built on the assumption that drones have to be phoning home to something. A drone that isn't interested in talking to the outside world can only be jammed with projectiles or a really big butterfly net.
Re:What could go wrong? by DanielRavenNest · 2016-01-06 12:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

You guys are overthinking the problem. If you want to shoot down an airliner, build an air cannon, set it up under the approach path to an airport, and lob explosives or ball bearings into the plane's path. The pumpkin throwing contests reached almost a mile with an 8 lb projectile, which is plenty of range. Smart ECM is of no use if you are throwing a dumb projectile.
Re:What could go wrong? by WarJolt · 2016-01-06 14:03 · Score: 1

It's worse than that.
Some drones will land themselves, but drones currently don't have a requirement for backup plans if they lose links, so if you jam a harmless drone it may go out of control and kill someone.
Additionally, there are other legitimate uses for the bands that drones use. The FCC wouldn't be happy about airplanes disrupting those services.
Drones also can be controller by pretty much any radio signal including a cell phone signal. The FCC REALLY wouldn't be happy about jamming cell phones.
Most importantly, most drones have some ability to fly autonomously even though they are supposed to be piloted by an actual person on the ground. It is concievable that any malicious drone would hit it's target without any pilot. It's not that hard to program a drone with custom sensors and firmware.
Re:What could go wrong? by Hylandr · 2016-01-06 17:28 · Score: 2

The Evil in this is that it makes pumpkin throwing contests so much more interesting.
Kinda like Skeet shooting.
" PULL !! "

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 20:30 · Score: 0

Against someone who is expecting to be jammed, I'd assume that the drone's default behavior would be 'fly toward the strongest RF source if you lose connection with manual control' and the jammer would be a nice handy beacon.to head right into as fast as possible.
And if the airbus is expecting to be crossed by a drone that is expecting to be jammed, then I suppose that after identification of the ground operator, the plane could send to him some GBU-43 MOABs.
Re:What could go wrong? by TheDarkMaster · 2016-01-06 22:39 · Score: 2

Hum... So, that's the reason for Airbus to have an order of 547 GAU-8 units...

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:What could go wrong? by Richard_at_work · 2016-01-06 23:21 · Score: 1

Harder than you think - the IRA did essentially what you are suggesting, only with home made mortars fired from a vehicle parked in a hotel carpark at London Heathrow. They didn't bring down an aircraft, and hardly impacted the operation of the airport.
Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 23:59 · Score: 0

The IRA werent targeting the aircraft. The were doing what they always did when they attacked the mainland (post about '85), trying to cause economic disruption.
Re:What could go wrong? by Translation+Error · 2016-01-07 02:43 · Score: 2

Exactly. No, this won't stop an attack by agents trained and funded by a foreign government or a high tech genius, but it isn't intended to. What it's meant to do is prevent someone off the street from throwing down some money, getting a drone, and flying it into a plane or restricted building, and the value of that is enormous.

--
When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
Re:What could go wrong? by Arterion · 2016-01-07 06:18 · Score: 1

I understand what you're saying, but then I wonder: is a drone really going to accomplish this any better than a "traditional" method? Whenever a new technology comes out that can be used nefariously, I have to remind myself that our entire civil society is based on an honor system. People don't commit crimes simply because most people are not inclined to do so, and because crimes are punished.
This is really about people the fear someone could commit an old-fashioned crimes with fancy new technology. I don't really think there is any more risk criminal activity. Hypothetically, if I wanted to kill you, I could fly a drone into your office and try to explode it on you. Or I could just wait until you get off work bash you in the head with a rock. Both accomplish the same result, one method has been around since there were humans.
What I see as a potential new risk, however, is the possibility that one person (rather than an organized group of people), could activate numerous drones simultaneously and coordinate some kind of mischief in a way that was hitherto impossible. One guy with one drone and bad intentions is not much worse than one guy with zero drones and bad intentions. But if that guy has fifty drones, and he's programmed them to do something naughty, that's a lot more like fifty guys with zero drones and bad intentions -- and that could be quite bad! Even so, discussions have already pointed out while this may be effective against pilot-controlled drones, it is much less so for the kind of fully-automated drones that seem, at least to me, see more menacing. It's really not even a discussion about drones at that point, though, it's (in the most general sense) about the effect of automation on human productivity.

--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 11:31 · Score: 0

Gallileo
Re:What could go wrong? by david_thornley · 2016-01-07 11:50 · Score: 1

The people sending the drones into the wrong airspace aren't trying to commit crimes; they're having fun, and just don't care for some reason that it's illegal, and that there are good reasons for it to be illegal. It's something like firing lasers at aircraft, but it probably feels less hostile.
This isn't about trying to stop an actual attack, because it won't. It's trying to keep the idiots from interfering with the airplane.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 16:55 · Score: 0

The limiting factor of pumpkin canons isn't the canon... It's the pumpkin. Turns out you can only put so much muzzle velocity on a squash before it breaks up on impact with the stationary air outside the barrel. A huge part of winning that contest was growing a breed of pumpkin that's as round, solid and consistent as possible, and then accurately (and non-destructively) judging the limits of a given projectile that can only be fired once.
Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 18:03 · Score: 0

Exactly. No, this won't stop an attack by agents trained and funded by a foreign government or a high tech genius, but it isn't intended to. What it's meant to do is prevent someone off the street from throwing down some money, getting a drone, and flying it into a plane or restricted building, and the value of that is enormous.
The drones someone from off the street can afford aren't going to do any significant damage on collision. So where is the value of the Airbus ECM again?
Re:What could go wrong? by Hylandr · 2016-01-08 02:49 · Score: 1

A squash can't be used as cannon fodder because it 'squashes', imagine that!

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.

Great news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Great news, about time there was a counter to this DANGEROUS and IRRESPONSIBLE activity by untrained unlicensed immature toy users.

Can they now fire lasers back at the laser pointer crowd?

Re:Great news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 22:44 · Score: 1

Can they now fire lasers back at the laser pointer crowd?
No need to get into the dubious legality of "firing back". Decorate the planes (especially the underside of the cockpit) with retroreflectors. Some noob shining a 200mW pointer at that, stands a good chance of taking out their own eyes as the beam comes back. Also works for cars - with the added benefit of harassing the tailgater who keeps the high beams on. Retroreflectors are cheap to buy & easy to make.

That a better answer than stopping sales by Ravaldy · 2016-01-06 10:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Protecting an area that should be drone free is a better answer than any rules, regulations or bans they can come up with. Whether this truly is as effective as they claim is a whole other matter.

Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by Obfuscant · 2016-01-06 10:24 · Score: 2

Protecting an area that should be drone free...

You do realize that an Airbus flying at 30,000' over your property is less than six miles away from you, don't you? Your property is suddenly in what you consider a drone-free zone -- even if you are the one flying it.
Many years ago DOD used to dither the timing signals on GPS (called "selective availability") to downgrade the position quality. They finally realized that too many users of GPS were being negatively impacted by such nonsense and stopped doing it. Imagine the negative impact on other users when that aircraft flying 30,000' above you starts spoofing the GPS system.
Some people are paranoid about chemtrails from distant aircraft, it is much better that they can now have a known issue with that aircraft screwing with their GPS.
Re: That a better answer than stopping sales by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:34 · Score: 1

Pretty sure this system is ground based and intended to keep drones out of specific areas. The only time a plane has to worry about a drone is during take off and landing. If the drone is flying 30, 000 ft in the air, then it probably is not a consumer grade drone.
Re: That a better answer than stopping sales by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-01-06 10:40 · Score: 1

It tracks up to 6 miles away. They aren't interested in anything not suspicious, like you putzing around near the ground. They mean like something at 30,000 feet right in front of them.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 11:05 · Score: 1

Actually the selective availability was turned off when we invaded Iraq and couldn't supply all the soldiers with military-grade receivers, to they gave them consumer units and removed the intentional error.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by viperidaenz · 2016-01-06 11:24 · Score: 2

The GPS signals, GLONASS signals, Galileo signals or BeiDou signals?
Re: That a better answer than stopping sales by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-01-06 11:59 · Score: 1

Actually, given the market for wifi AP location databases, for assorted GPS-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends arrangements for phones, it might well be worth their while to just grab whatever they can if the gear is already installed and being operated in case something suspicious shows up.

The resolution would be poor compared to ground based mapping(like the Google cars that got caught being a little too inquisitive about wifi traffic); but if you have to have the system running to detect suspicious activity anyway, doesn't cost much extra to dump the boring parts of the dataset to disk and see if anyone is interested.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-06 12:15 · Score: 3, Informative

You don't even need to read the article - just look at the picture - to know this is a ground-based system. There is no "that aircraft screwing with their GPS."

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by MightyYar · 2016-01-06 12:22 · Score: 1

Bill Clinton invaded Iraq? o_O

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by plover · 2016-01-06 12:29 · Score: 1, Interesting

Even The Fine Summary said they'd selectively jam the drone's communication, not the GPS signals. That means if they detect a 2.4GHz signal in the direction of the radar signature of the drone, they'll jam 2.4GHz. To avoid interfering with legitimate radio traffic I suspect their system discriminates, and only identifies transmissions in bands assigned to RC control or transmissions on the unlicensed bands. It probably wouldn't jam cell frequencies or other licensed bands.
And that will be good enough to stop virtually all of the model aircraft being flown into prison yards today. Their problems today are not caused by sophisticated electrical engineers who illegally mod their radios to transmit on illicit frequencies. Their problems are coming from the buddies of inmates who go to the mall, buy a cheap RC quadcopter, duct-tape a cell phone and a few packets of powdered substances to it, and send it over the wall during the exercise period. If they can stop the hundreds of those guys today, they can worry about the EE types later after they become a real threat.
There's perfect, and then there's good enough to be effective now. This falls into the latter category.

--
John
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by Obfuscant · 2016-01-06 12:56 · Score: 1

Even The Fine Summary said they'd selectively jam the drone's communication, not the GPS signals.
You should read at least the summary. It says, pretty clear:

Since the jamming technology contains versatile receiving and transmitting capabilities, more sophisticated measures like remote control classification and GPS spoofing can be utilized as well.
"GPS spoofing" means they have to broadcast signals that cover the legitimate signals from the GPS satellites. That means "jam", just with something that looks real. Now, GPS signals have gotten a lot easier to recieve as satellite technology improves, but that just means that the GPS spoofing signals have to be that much stronger, too.

To avoid interfering with legitimate radio traffic I suspect their system discriminates, and only identifies transmissions in bands assigned to RC control or transmissions on the unlicensed bands.
Because we all know there is no legitimate radio traffic on the unlicensed WiFi bands.

And that will be good enough to stop virtually all of the model aircraft being flown into prison yards today.
And anything in the direction of their "directional antenna", and any GPS user in that direction, too.

If they can stop the hundreds of those guys today, they can worry about the EE types later after they become a real threat
I don't think electrical engineers, as a "type", are a threat.

There's perfect, and then there's good enough to be effective now. This falls into the latter category.
And there's "has significant issues that can be easily predicted", which is what this falls into.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by tsotha · 2016-01-06 13:14 · Score: 1

They finally realized that too many users of GPS were being negatively impacted by such nonsense and stopped doing it.
You mean they realized if they didn't stop everyone would switch over to Galileo or Glonass.
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-07 00:28 · Score: 1

Protecting an area that should be drone free is a better answer than any rules, regulations or bans they can come up with. Whether this truly is as effective as they claim is a whole other matter.
You may be able to protect one end of the flight but not the other in which case you take whatever protection you can with you.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-01-07 02:38 · Score: 1

Many years ago DOD used to dither the timing signals on GPS (called "selective availability") to downgrade the position quality.
And the people who really needed accurate positioning information did "differential GPS".
Which basically consisted of a GPS receiver at a known surveyed point and a transmitter that sent corrections out in realtime based on the difference between where GPS said they were and where the survey said they were. Worked quite well close to the survey point (within a few dozen miles), not so well further away. So the whole point of SA was eliminated....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

jamming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:16 · Score: 0

"the jamming signals are blocking only the relevant frequencies used to operate the drone" as in 2.4ghz. Good thing nothing else uses that frequency.

Re:jamming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:36 · Score: 0

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Other problems:
* Disrupting the control signal to a simple drone may cause it to fly erroneously and crash (not necessarily straight down). Who to blame for damage then?
* More advanced designs can fly without a control signals. You can get/build drones that "return to base" when control is lost, or even fly complete missions without communication with the operator. Messing with gps is tricky - a drone may very well use a directional antenna that don't pick up much noise from the ground. You may be able to overpower that with a much stronger signal, but then every other gps nearby fails too - including ships & planes. And of course, it is possible to fly a drone using inertial navigation for some time
* Attacking 2.4GHz is a bit old - there are several other frequencies in use already.
Re:jamming by sexconker · 2016-01-06 11:01 · Score: 2, Informative

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
Re:jamming by bobbied · 2016-01-06 11:18 · Score: 1

Don't forget jamming/spoofing GPS signals might actually present a danger to other aircraft in the area. There are IFR approach procedures that use GPS at most major airports in the USA. The FAA won't stand for anybody operating a GPS jammer/spoffer anywhere near any airport.
By the way... Where it is possible to get pretty directional with antennas, 2.4 Ghz is still going to require significant volume to house that antenna. 12cm is still a pretty long wavelength. I have a 29dB gain yagi that's a couple of feet long. Also, all such antennas will have "side lobes" which will carry significant amounts of the energy you feed into the antenna. So, to be effective, you will have to carefully limit the power used or you will run the risk of interfering with unintended transmitters, which makes the problem of jamming a whole lot harder. Not only do you need to accurately point your antenna, you also need to determine how much power is necessary to disrupt the drone's systems.... But, as luck would have it, you don't really know enough so the easy solution is to just blast away at full power....
So, I don't really care how great you think that antenna can be, if you put too much gain in it, you won't be able to accurately point it and it will take up lots of space and when you open up the beam width so you can hope to point it, you are going to end up interfering with licensed legal users of the spectrum when you blast away with enough power to reliably disrupt the data link with the pilot.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:jamming by dpidcoe · 2016-01-06 12:33 · Score: 1

According to other comments this is a ground based system. Also, yagi isn't the be all end all of directional antennas. There are most definitely microwave antennas with less prominent sidelobes, as well as phased arrays that can steer a beam very precisely.
Re:jamming by plover · 2016-01-06 12:45 · Score: 1

Disrupting the control signal to a simple drone may cause it to fly erroneously and crash (not necessarily straight down). Who to blame for damage then?
The pilot, 100%. If this is a "no fly zone" for models, it's nobody's fault but the person who chose to fly their model into the zone. And they aren't going to mess with GPS -- too much risk, too many legal issues.
As I posted above, they're not looking to solve every problem, and jam every possible frequency, and stop every possible type of navigational system. They're looking to stop the gang members from buying a quadcopter at the mall, duct-taping a gun or cell phone to it, then flying it into their buddy's prison. This is a practical approach to reducing the current problems, not a perfect fix that eliminates every possible type of R/C aircraft.

--
John
Re:jamming by tsotha · 2016-01-06 13:17 · Score: 1

That was my thought - who is going to buy this? Commercial airlines aren't going to want this kind of equipment within a hundred miles of their flights. And it seems underpowered for military applications.
Re:jamming by Obfuscant · 2016-01-06 13:43 · Score: 1

And they aren't going to mess with GPS -- too much risk, too many legal issues.
So that's why they talk about GPS spoofing in both the summary and TFS? They aren't going to spoof GPS but might as well mention how easy it would be to do.

As I posted above, they're not looking to solve every problem, and jam every possible frequency, and stop every possible type of navigational system.
Only GPS, which is used by the vast majority of anything that has a need for positional information.

not a perfect fix that eliminates every possible type of R/C aircraft.
So, your definition of "a perfect fix" is one that eliminates every possible type of R/C aircraft, then.
Re:jamming by ShaunC · 2016-01-06 14:19 · Score: 1

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Re:jamming by cyn1c77 · 2016-01-06 17:08 · Score: 1

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
So is warrant-less wiretapping. Right? :)
Re:jamming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 23:56 · Score: 0

Jamming bands _licensed for other people's use_ is illegal. As it happens, 2400 Mhz is an ISM band which means that unlicensed use is allowed but not protected. Microwave communications at 2400 Mhz is allowed, licensed and takes precedence over unlicensed ISM usage. So a microwave tower operator who jams a nearby drone is most likely acting legally.
Re:jamming by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-07 00:39 · Score: 1

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:jamming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 01:38 · Score: 0

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
I agree. Anti-drone missiles work much better
Re:jamming by dcw3 · 2016-01-07 03:46 · Score: 1

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...
There is nothing "unauthorized" about the signals sent to a drone. Even if it was, civilians don't get to enforce the laws. And your link, which refers specifically to cell jamming, doesn't counter that in any way.
"Operation of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. "

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:jamming by dcw3 · 2016-01-07 03:51 · Score: 1

"The pilot, 100%. If this is a "no fly zone" for models"
And, when I'm legally flying my drone in my backyard (ten miles from the local airport, but in the glidepath), and it drops from the sky on someone's head? Sorry, but it's not legal for private individuals, or private companies to enforce laws. That's the governments job.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:jamming by bobbied · 2016-01-07 04:00 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm aware of these other antennas. Phased arrays are not well suited to this frequency range due to the physical size required and where they are easy to point, it is difficult to reduce the side lobes and keep the primary lobe having sufficient gain at oblique angles. Dish antennas can have good beam widths with reasonable side lobes, but are very difficult to accurately point because it is a mechanical system.
I seriously doubt a ground based solution is a good idea though using any of these antennas. The system will need to be high enough to see the pilot, but will then be high enough to see a lot of other legitimate users of the spectrum too. IF you are high enough to see something, you are going to be risking interfering with things other than the intended target.
So, to my point, leave the jamming part out and just use the detection parts. If you detect a drone operating where you don't want, quickly find the pilots location and be ready to apprehend the idiot. Tie a camera to the detection and start taking video. Deter illegal operations by catching folks who insist on doing it and make examples of them. None of this requires or is specifically advanced by disabling the drone.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:jamming by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-07 04:43 · Score: 1

The article is not specific to cell jamming. It's quite obviously regarding any jamming. I reference it with regard to the use of the word 'authorized'.
If the drone itself is unauthorized to be where it is, the signals going to it could thus be considered to be unauthorized.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:jamming by dcw3 · 2016-01-07 07:11 · Score: 1

Yes, you're correct on the cell jamming part...my bad for honing in on the cell jammer part, not reading the whole thing. That said, nobody but government is allowed to enforce those rules, so any private company would be in violation.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:jamming by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-07 19:25 · Score: 1

Yes, you're correct on the cell jamming part...my bad for honing in on the cell jammer part, not reading the whole thing. That said, nobody but government is allowed to enforce those rules, so any private company would be in violation.
Except that jamming an unauthorized signal isn't 'enforcement' of anything.
If the signal is unauthorized, then jamming that signal is not illegal and anyone can do it.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:jamming by dcw3 · 2016-01-07 23:42 · Score: 1

What part of...
"Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and wireless networking services (Wi-Fi)."
...don't you get? You're not allowed to jam period.
See if you can dig up ANY legal opinion to back up your comment. No?...didn't think so.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:jamming by dpidcoe · 2016-01-08 09:04 · Score: 1

Phased arrays are not well suited to this frequency range due to the physical size required and where they are easy to point, it is difficult to reduce the side lobes and keep the primary lobe having sufficient gain at oblique angles.
I'm definitely not an antenna expert, but doesn't the radar on a warship operate in the ghz range and use a phased array? I've heard anecdotes of knocking birds out of the sky with a highly directed beam, and there was an incident in the news several years ago where a US destroyer caused all sorts of havoc on a Norwegian ship when they accidentally painted it with their radar system at full power from a few miles away.

Also, if it's ground based size isn't a huge concern, and I don't know of any reason the whole array can't be mounted such that it's easy to rotate to face threats.
Re:jamming by bobbied · 2016-01-08 11:23 · Score: 1

Radar frequencies exist above and below the 2.4Ghz band... However, phased arrays for transmit are usually higher frequencies due to the physical size of the radiating elements required. Where you can do phased radar arrays down into the HF spectrum (and some have) the antennas start getting really big, heavy and bulky and the control systems get really big too..
You *can* do all sorts of things, but at 2.4 GHz doing it using a phased array on transmit is usually going to involve either a large physical size or acceptance of limited beam control. There is a trade off, as always.
However, my biggest argument here is not really the physical size, but the ability to accurately control where you are putting your jamming signal close enough. You may have the ability to put a signal that's 0.1 degrees wide out, but it's *really* hard to know where you want to point that beam with sufficient accuracy when you are trying to hit moving targets from large distances. Remember you have to get enough RF to hit the desired receiving antenna to disrupt the signal but not disrupt other things, so as you make your beam widths wider and your antenna simpler to point you have to crank up the power, which in turn increases the likelihood you are blasting both the desired data link and a bunch of other ones. My contention is that in order to make the antenna pointing problem sufficiently doable (detect, calculate direction and point), you are going to need a fairly wide beam width. And that beam width is going to require a lot more power than you suspect to disrupt the data link with any kind of assurance... AND the combination of these two trade offs will be that you are likely going to be disrupting a whole host of other things which are NOT desired....
But hey... I'm just a software engineer that used to work on radio systems that involved data links and directional phased arrays.... Who happens to have a EE degree.. Don't mind me.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:jamming by dpidcoe · 2016-01-08 11:56 · Score: 1

However, my biggest argument here is not really the physical size, but the ability to accurately control where you are putting your jamming signal close enough. You may have the ability to put a signal that's 0.1 degrees wide out, but it's *really* hard to know where you want to point that beam with sufficient accuracy when you are trying to hit moving targets from large distances.
What I'm getting at is isn't this already a solved problem? Military FCS radars can steer a beam to hit a fast moving target. Is there something I'm not understanding about the difference between pumping enough RF through a radar system to cook a bird half a mile away vs pumping enough RF through this system to disrupt the electronics of an unhardened drone?

Remember you have to get enough RF to hit the desired receiving antenna to disrupt the signal but not disrupt other things, so as you make your beam widths wider and your antenna simpler to point you have to crank up the power, which in turn increases the likelihood you are blasting both the desired data link and a bunch of other ones.
Assuming this is a ground to air weapon and that sidelobes are effectively dealt with, what other things would be in line with the drone though?

So at first... by JoeMerchant · 2016-01-06 10:17 · Score: 1

Not so long ago, playing a video game or using a cell phone could interfere with a commercial airliner's sensitive communication systems, endangering life and property, and therefore was banned for decades before slowly beginning to acknowledge that the threat wasn't very credible.

But now, a suspicious object over 5 miles away is reason to start sending deliberate jamming signals, likely on the GPS frequencies as well as all common command and control bands? Yeah, nothing could go wrong there.

Re:So at first... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:31 · Score: 0

Not having RTFA, did they really say that they would start jamming the control signals from 5 miles away, or simply that they detect and track the drone from that far away? Big difference there...
Re:So at first... by JoeMerchant · 2016-01-06 10:58 · Score: 1

Commercial airliners can travel at speeds up to 9 miles per minute, though while at those speeds they aren't likely to be meeting any consumer class drones due to the thin air. Even on approach, they are still doing around 4 miles per minute - if they're not starting their signal jamming at 60 seconds out, they won't likely be able to get any control of the situation before intercept.
Re:So at first... by plover · 2016-01-06 12:51 · Score: 4, Informative

The request came from the Department of Justice. These are to be installed in fixed locations, such as the roof of a prison. Just because Airbus created them does not mean they intend to install them on their aircraft.
And very few prisons are traveling at 4 miles per minute, even those on final approach. :-)

--
John
Re:So at first... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 14:13 · Score: 0

Ban the planes then. As we obviously can't use them correctly without ensuring that the 6+ miles around the airport is completely locked down and devoid of any potential threat, the airports should be purpose built in the middle of nowhere with security check in off site and approved passengers carted in prison bus style to their flights.
Oh what's that Mr.Mayor? you wanted an airport in your city to drum up tourism and out of city profits? Too bad. We need these planes secure, and we can't do it if there are people living / working / existing nearby.
Re:So at first... by JoeMerchant · 2016-01-06 15:49 · Score: 1

Meh, would have to have read the article to know that - blame the summary...
Anyway, interesting, even still - blasting out long range EM interference for channels like 2.4GHz and whatever GPS operates on is normally grounds for arrest and fine. I suppose if you're running a licensed prison you are exempt from such peasant concerns.
Re:So at first... by dave420 · 2016-01-07 00:29 · Score: 1

It was a case of the airlines/FCC not knowing whether the cell phones or video games would interfere, and so they erred on the side of caution and banned them until they were shown to not interfere. That's how is usually goes with such things - you not understanding that is not cause to launch into a rant on this subject, as you clearly need to do some more homework.
Re:So at first... by Aqualung812 · 2016-01-07 01:11 · Score: 1

It was a case of the airlines/FCC not knowing whether the cell phones or video games would interfere
Bullshit. Pilots were using tablets with their navigation software for years before the passengers were allowed to.
Either they knew it would be fine and didn't want to mess with it, or they were negligent in allowing pilots to use those tablets. Has to be one or the other.

--
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Re:So at first... by dave420 · 2016-01-07 03:49 · Score: 1

Or that pilots are in the best (only?) position to see that the instruments start screwing up when electronic devices are used and do something about it? Or that there might be a slight difference between two tablets in the cockpit and 300 tablets & phones distributed through the entire length of the plane?
Nooo.... it must be some sort of weird, unexplainable conspiracy between Sony and the FAA or some shit.
Re:So at first... by Aqualung812 · 2016-01-07 06:03 · Score: 1

Nooo.... it must be some sort of weird, unexplainable conspiracy between Sony and the FAA or some shit.
Never said that. They just didn't give a shit about doing it, and then it became a whole sidebar debate about people on their cell phones during a flight which had nothing to do with the issue.

Or that there might be a slight difference between two tablets in the cockpit and 300 tablets & phones distributed through the entire length of the plane?
If EMI wasn't an issue 1 meter away from all of the avionics, it certainly wouldn't be an issue farther away. Learn about EM radiation and the inverse square law.

--
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.

April fool's day? by Obfuscant · 2016-01-06 10:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Please tell me this is an April Fool's joke.

Jamming the WiFi control signals to remove the UAS from the pilot's control? GPS spoofing to disrupt the GPS for every other GPS user within range?

Deliberate and willful interference with regulated radio services should be, and is, a federal crime.

Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:28 · Score: 0

Wifi is used for controlling drones? Hmm... As far as GPS spoofing is concerned, I would suspect that the jamming signal would be highly directional.
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:30 · Score: 0

Depends, for law enforcement it is fine in most countries. Not sure about the us, but I think as long as it is done by federal agents the fcc authority to phrohibit it can be waved.
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:41 · Score: 0

You know Airbus makes military aircraft as well, right?
Re:April fool's day? by bobbied · 2016-01-06 10:41 · Score: 1

Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
Just the interdepartmental squabbling between the FAA and the FCC would kill the idea, but there are other reasons for this.
Jamming the GPS signal, even in a targeted area, is going to be a show stopper anyplace where GPS is used as an approved IFR approach, which is going to include most major airports in the USA. There is ZERO chance the FAA is going to knowingly allow some aircraft to operate a GPS jammer/spoofer anywhere near an airport that has an approved GPS approach procedure. Not going to happen, no way, no how. So, if you are flying an Airbus in or out of any major airport (and what Airbus won't be) forget about turning this system on, at least the GPS part.
Then there is the dubious nature of jamming the WiFi signal. Who knows what the drone is going to do when you try that? Who knows, it might just decide to change course and altitude and head right for the aircraft you are trying to protect. There is no way you know for sure.
About the only part of this system that's viable here is the "I can track where the things are and report the position to authorities" part. Do that part, leave the other parts alone... Track the drone and warn the flight deck of it if it is a conflict. Track the pilot of the drone's location, take a high resolution picture of them and automatically report it Petition to make this data suitable to prosecute the idiots who fly their drones in unsafe areas. You name it... Just don't do the jamming part.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:April fool's day? by geoskd · 2016-01-06 10:49 · Score: 1

Deliberate and willful interference with regulated radio services should be, and is, a federal crime.
It is, essentially, a misdemeanor.
Flying a drone in a restricted airspace is, however, a violation of various anti-terror laws, and will end with jail time for the operator. This is one of those cases where the laws actually got it right.
Also, never minding what the laws say, Drones are god-damn dangerous when flown outside of a narrow envelope. The fact that these drone "pilots" are too stupid to know better makes them even more dangerous. It is just a matter of time before one of these idiot toy drones takes down an airliner and kills people. Why do we have to wait for that to happen before we realize that flying a drone is no different than operating a motor vehicle or flying a plane, and treat it as such (Proper licensing only after demonstrated knowledge and skills).

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 11:02 · Score: 0

I was about to say something similar.
Since a lot of airports are in urban to suburban areas jamming a drone and making it lose control and possibly plummet out of the sky is a completely irresponsible thing to do, especially for an aircraft manufacturer!!! Yes, the drone operator is probably not being responsible either if they're in the path of a commercial aircraft, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Re:April fool's day? by bugnuts · 2016-01-06 11:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

Jamming any RF signal is a federal crime, but no they aren't controlled over wifi. But that doesn't matter because intentionally jamming any RF signal is a federal crime.
TFA discussed uses around prisons. That makes sense, and if remote enough, can probably get an exception to jam a signal.
GPS spoofing (also illegal), can interfere with many other issues, most of them life-threatening.
Re:April fool's day? by viperidaenz · 2016-01-06 11:29 · Score: 1

They generally use the same ISM spectrum as WiFi - 2.4GHz
They also generally use frequency-hopping, so they'll need to jam the entire spectrum.
Re:April fool's day? by bugnuts · 2016-01-06 11:30 · Score: 1

There are levels to that statement which make it acceptable and unacceptable depending on the circumstances.
A sUAS illegally in the flight path of a manned aircraft should be removed with prejudice. It is extremely dangerous. Let it fall out of the sky. (Unfortunately, it probably won't just drop ... most are programmed to return to sender upon loss of signal. That's where the GPS spoofing would commandeer it.)
A sUAS spotted 6 mi away by this device that is not endangering a manned aircraft (or high security dignitary or something), even if it's where it shouldn't technically be such as a Temporary Flight Restriction, should never be touched. If the operator affects it, it's reckless and should be a jailable offense even if done by law enforcement.
Re:April fool's day? by blue9steel · 2016-01-06 11:40 · Score: 1

Deliberate and willful interference with regulated radio services should be, and is, a federal crime.
Laws only apply to little people.
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 11:42 · Score: 0

Please tell me this is an April Fool's joke.
Jamming the WiFi control signals to remove the UAS from the pilot's control? GPS spoofing to disrupt the GPS for every other GPS user within range?
Deliberate and willful interference with regulated radio services should be, and is, a federal crime.
"... developed by Airbus Defense and Space"
Obviously not intended for commercial airliners.
Re:April fool's day? by bugnuts · 2016-01-06 11:43 · Score: 1

The prevailing attitude demonstrated by you is that UAS operators are inherently and collectively reckless. I see that promoted around like the terrorist muslim trope, and that attitude is stupid, unjustified, and ignorant. UAS pilots have been flying longer than manned aircraft pilots. Modelling clubs go back to the turn of the previous century. Like aircraft, there have been some close calls, but UAS operators are far more conscientious than drivers, even commercial drivers, at obeying common sense accepted methods of operation. To my knowledge, over a century of flying and only 2 people have ever been killed from a model aircraft. Compare that to any recreational activity ... go cart racing, boating, fishing, skeet shooting, skiing, etc.
The FAA has previously acknowledged the minimal impact on national air space with only a single advisement circular recommending best practices originally written in 1981, which virtually all fliers read as "obey these suggestions and keep flying". It was recently updated 3 months ago when the FAA was charged with coming up with acceptable regulations for commercial fliers.
It's only because of ignorant knee-jerk statements like yours, with little basis on reality other than anecdotal reports, combined with the FAA's tardiness on creating real regulations that they were given 3 years to create due last september, that the FAA came out with their goofy-ass regulations which violates section 336 of the law explicitly denying them authority to regulate model aircraft.
Re:April fool's day? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-01-06 12:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

This may change if enough cheapie drones filled with assorted narcotic goodies keep making it over the fence; but my understanding is that team FCC has been surprisingly effective, even in the face of 'zOMG Security!' and 'Tough on Crime!' in holding the line on jammers. Contraband cellphones have proven tricky to keep out of prisons(not yet normally delivered by drones; but any facility moving around that much food, garbage, laundry, visitors, etc. is necessarily porous); and penal authorities would love to be able to just jam them, rather than painstakingly try to frisk the population over and over to try to stay ahead. So far, the answer has been No.
Re:April fool's day? by chrisautrey · 2016-01-06 12:09 · Score: 1

Estimates put drone gifts for Christmas this year at somewhere around a million for North America. I'm not worried about the guy that's been doing all of the great things that you reference. I'm worried about the not insignificant portion of those million untrained people (including unsupervised children that are not know for making great decisions) that get their drone and suddenly think it's a great idea to go out and see how close they can get to the aircraft landing at their local airport.
Re:April fool's day? by lgw · 2016-01-06 12:13 · Score: 1

But that doesn't matter because intentionally jamming any RF signal is a federal crime.
Unless the government grants permission! Airbus can't just build this and sell it to random people, but institutions that already work closely with government (or are part of the government) are a different story. It's not like "intense regulatory burden" is anything new to Airbus!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:April fool's day? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-06 12:20 · Score: 1

Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.

The US government wants to buy things like this, so "approvde for use within the USA" is NOT going to be an issue:

The Airbus system follows a recent Layer 8 post that detailed the US Federal Bureau of Prisons looking for such as system to protect federal prison guards and prisoners from incoming threatening drones.
The group, which is an agency of the Department of Justice issued a Request for Information in November specifically targeting what it called a fully integrated system that will allow for the detection, tracking, interdiction, engagement and neutralization of small -- less the 55lb -- unmanned aerial system.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:April fool's day? by bugnuts · 2016-01-06 13:42 · Score: 1

It really immaterial what the estimates of gifts were. In 2012, the FAA was ordered to have regulations in place by september 2015, to handle commercial UAS. They were explicitly prohibited from regulating hobby drones. UAS tech was blossoming, and the FAA knew this long ago.
In Sept 2015, they updated their AC-91 57, which had to do with hobby UAS. They had been running some tests for commercial flights, handing out occasional section 333 exceptions to movie industries and others.
In Nov 2015, they got feedback that this year's sales were expected to be around 1M+. Fearing what you stated, dumb people flying drones into manned aircraft, they cobbled together a site incredibly quickly requiring registration of all aircraft. They loosely, and wrongly, interpreted the law stating that they may not promulgate restrictions or regulations that affect any hobby or recreational UAS, to read that they may not promulgate rules that affect only hobby or recreational UAS. Despite having 3 years to see this and come up with regulations, they bypassed the mandatory 60 days of public comment stating that it was an emergency situation (caused by their own inaction, which case law has shown cannot be used as an excuse to consider it an emergency).
They are now requiring everyone 13 years old and up to publicly register their names and addresses. In a searchable database, publicly accessible. Failure to do this carries up to a 3 year jail sentence and $25,000 fine. This is the potential penalty for little johnny flying a drone at TWO INCHES above ground level in his own back yard. No joke, the FAA has asserted control from the top of a blade of grass (their words) to the top of the atmosphere. If a neighbor complains about little johnny in his back yard playing with a helicopter that looks like it weights more than 500g, a federal cop has probable cause.
The FAA had orders to have this in place 3 years ago, and failed. Based on that failure, they're claiming an emergency gives them rights to break the law and forgo public comment. The estimates for drone gifts don't matter... the FAA was given 3 years to solve this before it became an issue. Now they are breaking the law that literally requires an act of congress to reverse. (See section 336 which prohibits them from regulating hobby craft.)
There were so many other ways they could have handled this correctly. They could have requested hobby drone manufacturers enclose a copy of AC-91 57 in their packaging. They could have petitioned congress to change the law, allowing some regulation of hobby drones. They could have made a system that didn't allow searching for names and addresses of minors. They could have asked drone manufacturers to, by default, activate geofencing (but not require it). I'm sure there are other even better ways to handle this, too.
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 14:03 · Score: 0

Not true. They let the president and other VIP's motorcades roll with quite powerful jammers as standard practice and in quite densely populated areas.
Re:April fool's day? by geoskd · 2016-01-06 14:58 · Score: 1

There were so many other ways they could have handled this correctly.
No, no there isn't. As Chrisautrey stated, and you failed to listen: Its not the seasoned hobbyist, or semi pro that is the problem. It's the rank and file immature moron who by design or accident gets too close to commercial airspace and downs an airliner full of people. There have already been far too many close calls. The simple fact is that, although you are right that no self respecting hobbyist will go astray, There is no good way for anyone outside of your hobby to know the difference in advance. Model aircraft were equally dangerous, except for a few basic facts that made them less of a global issue. First, a model aircraft or Heli used to be much harder to fly. Before the advent of microcontroller based flight controls, you had to know what you were doing. This inherently made the hobby expensive and very time consuming. As a result, would-be pilots had a large amount of experience and invested time and money before they were ever able to affect commercial air traffic. That kept incidents to an extremely infrequent pace. Today, any idiot (and a quick hunt around youtube will easily demonstrate that many of these people *are* idiots), can cough up $100 and go fly a drone into someplace they don't belong. This would be akin to allowing any numnuts with $100 to go driving on public roads without a license. You can't make a rational argument for that either.
I'm genuinely sorry that your hobby is being ruined by the massive popularity it wasn't ready for, but doing anything in communal space comes with responsibilities which you and your compatriots have dutifully respected, and now a new breed of kids is ruining it for you. The best you can do is not to fight the regulation that is coming, but work to help ensure that it keeps the riff-raff out, and burdens you the least amount necessary to maintain the safety of the general public.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 19:16 · Score: 0

I doubt even in the USA the fine for jamming the ISM frequencies for half a minute is anywhere near the cost of a crashed airliner. I guess it is the only place where anyone would even think of comparing the rights of an idiot drone pilot to fly his drone against the lives of ~500 people.
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 19:22 · Score: 0

I'm genuinely sorry that your hobby is being ruined by the massive popularity it wasn't ready for
We all must face our Septembers ;(
Re:April fool's day? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 01:40 · Score: 0

TFA discussed uses around prisons. That makes sense, and if remote enough, can probably get an exception to jam a signal.
Why bother with prisons? Drone approaches prison, prison tower guards gets some welcome target practice. Sitting in a tower all day is boring. A beer for downing the drone, another if you hit it again while it is still falling. And another if the cargo got destroyed too. Bonus if you hit a prisoner trying to pick up pieces . . .
Also, I don't need a drone to chuck a phone/pistol/drug bag into a prison. A sling, or a simple catapult will do.
Re:April fool's day? by bobbied · 2016-01-07 03:40 · Score: 1

Ok, but flying it on a commercial aircraft such as the ones Airbus manufactures is absolutely NOT going to be allowed.
The government can do all sorts of things that private individuals and commercial enterprises are not allowed to do. Jamming Cell phones, spoofing GPS signals, jamming other radio services are things that the government can do, but won't let you do.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:April fool's day? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-07 05:07 · Score: 1

Don't be silly. It wouldn't WORK on an aircraft. It needs multiple stationary base stations for pinpointing the transmitter. RTFA for more info. I doubt that the Federal Dept. of Corrections runs too many jails at 30,000 feet.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:April fool's day? by bobbied · 2016-01-07 05:22 · Score: 1

I doubt that the Federal Dept. of Corrections runs too many jails at 30,000 feet.
LOL, well they run on at over 6,000 feet outside of Pueblo Colorado...
Still, commercial and privet use of such a system is going to be verboten in the USA. They will not be legal for sale to anybody but the government.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:April fool's day? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-07 16:13 · Score: 1

You still don't get it. This will not interfere with airliner GPS systems. RTFA more carefully, please. Also, many airports are private.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:April fool's day? by bobbied · 2016-01-08 04:08 · Score: 1

Any kind of GPS jamming/spoofing could, inadvertently, cause GPS problems for nearby aircraft operations. It's partially why such devices are verboten in the USA, you never really know for sure. I guarantee you that the FAA won't allow these things to be used around airports without placing restrictions on aircraft using GPS for navigation.
Now if the Department of Corrections wants to do this around some prison, OK, that might be possible. Or if the Secret Service wants to set up this equipment to protect somebody in their charge, they can do that too. However, one of the first things they will need to do is publish a NOTAM and establish restricted airspace around the area. The FAA isn't going to let you operate a Jammer/spoofer unless you first get them to close the airspace, so using such equipment to protect an airport is simply not going to happen, private or not.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:April fool's day? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-08 05:20 · Score: 1

First, airspace above prisons is generally a no-fly zone. Second, GPS spoofing is not the primary way this device works. Third, the 6 mile max beam is not sent straight up in the air - it's pointing downward or horizontally, or at a very slight angle up, so it won't affect airplane GPS, even if it's flying directly overhead. Fourth, as I pointed out before, these devices are NOT being used around airports. Also, the FAA would have NO problem with the airport operating a jammer on the frequencies used to control drones. So come off it, read the article - the word airport does not occur even once.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Will it really work on non-RC drones? by Spy+Handler · 2016-01-06 10:17 · Score: 1

a jammer interrupts the link between drone and pilot and/or its navigation

For an autonomous drone that relies on GPS... what happens if Airbus jams the GPS naviation? Wouldn't the drone just hover in the same spot while trying to re-establish signal? Or maybe go into an emergency landing mode where it just lands wherever it is.

Ok so the 2nd outcome would be what the jammer wants, but the 1st outcome isn't entirely desirable.

Re:Will it really work on non-RC drones? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:29 · Score: 0

The Airbus also uses Satellite tracking and other computational tracking, the GPS jammer would only be used to redirect the drone which is for a short period of time. It can safely use the other tracking methods.
Re:Will it really work on non-RC drones? by bobbied · 2016-01-06 10:51 · Score: 2

The FAA has approved GPS IFR approaches at most major airports, there is zero chance they will knowingly allow a GPS jammer/spoofer to operate anyplace near where an approved GPS based IFR approach has been approved. You might cause the drone to land, crash, or await the GPS signal to return, but you might cause the same to happen to an aircraft full of people flying an IFR approach. They may also loose their GPS signal and depending on the exact situation, they may land safely, have to do a missed approach or even possibly crash. When an aircraft is low and slow and pilot work load his high is when the risks are the worst.....
They simply need to leave out the active jamming part of this...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Will it really work on non-RC drones? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 12:29 · Score: 0

You can't *redirect* a drone by modifying the GPS signal without knowing where it is going. So you move it's present location via GPS to another location, it will just course correct to get to it's next waypoint.
Without knowing where the next waypoint is you cannot control where the drone will go.
Re:Will it really work on non-RC drones? by Whorhay · 2016-01-07 03:31 · Score: 1

From my understanding GPS jamming is typically a matter of broadcasting a different set of signals at higher power. So the drone doesn't actually know that it lost its GPS signal. The Jammer then manipulates their signals to position the drone where they want it. I believe that is the method that Iran is suspected of having used to capture that CIA drone.

Jamming? by sdguero · 2016-01-06 10:19 · Score: 1

Seeing as how most drone radio frequency communication operate at 2.4 or 5.8 Ghz, the FCC would likely have a problem with allowing the jamming capabilities.

Re:Jamming? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:29 · Score: 0

"Security" Trumps the FCC every time. The only people allowed to break the law are the people protecting us from people breaking the law.
Re:Jamming? by PPH · 2016-01-06 10:31 · Score: 1

the FCC would likely have a problem
Airbus sells in a lot of markets not under FCC jurisdiction. And with more permissive laws covering jamming.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Jamming? by bobbied · 2016-01-06 11:37 · Score: 1

Great, it won't be approved in North America for airline transport, or private use. Like it or not, that happens to be a significant part of Airbus' market.
Not to mention, that such a system will fail to be approved by both the FAA and the FCC, which is a significant issue as many of the certification boards in other countries have mutual agreements, which lets manufacturers seek certifications from their country's authority and don't then have to repeat the expensive certification process for every country that their equipment could possibly fly into.
Then there is the prevalence of GPS being used as a navigation tool by the commercial aviation industry nearly world wide. I'm fairly sure that in areas where GPS is allowed to be jammed near aircraft operations, there is a larger danger from other ground based threats (Shoulder fired IR guided missiles, high caliber weapons and such) than from drone collisions.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Jamming? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-06 12:25 · Score: 1

This is NOT being incorporated into airplanes.
It's a ground-based system with a maximum range of 6 miles, highly directional antennas, and the Department of Justice wants them on behalf of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. In other words, not more drones delivering contraband. And because it can track where the controller is, one more stupid crook before the courts.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Jamming? by bobbied · 2016-01-07 03:45 · Score: 1

That's not what the article says. The article was talking about airport security.
The government can (and does) do things that us individual citizens would be hauled off to jail for. If they want to protect their open prison yards with such a system, fine, it's just stupid to advertise that they are doing it. Such a system is super easy to work around if you know about it in advance so it's best for the government to keep it hush hush.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Seems like a lot of range. by bfmorgan · 2016-01-06 10:20 · Score: 1

The current restriction for drones is greater than 5000 ft. radius from an airport. Also, the ceiling for flight for non commercial drones is 400 ft. Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?

--
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.

Re:Seems like a lot of range. by Obfuscant · 2016-01-06 10:32 · Score: 1

The current restriction for drones is greater than 5000 ft. radius from an airport.
Five nautical miles is a bit more than 30,000'. I don't know where you got 5000'.

Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?
The summary mentions six miles, with is greater than all of "5000'", "30,000'", and "400'".
Re:Seems like a lot of range. by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-06 12:28 · Score: 2

Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?
There are no planes involved in the system. It's ground-based, highly directional, and the US Dept. of Justice wants them for the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. So now if someone wants to smuggle a phone into jail, they'll have to hide it by pulling a goat-guy. The range is 6 miles.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

the article sez it's for securing prisons by turkeydance · 2016-01-06 10:22 · Score: 1

like ours.

Re: the article sez it's for securing prisons by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:24 · Score: 0

Stop then smuggling weapons in to muslims
Re:the article sez it's for securing prisons by russotto · 2016-01-06 10:31 · Score: 1

That should be interesting. We could see a tech war between the smugglers and the prisons. They could fly in below the radar, popping up only long enough to clear a fence. They could use an inertial navigation system (try jamming that!). They could use odd frequencies not anticipated by the jamming system. Maybe we'll even see some mini-stealth.
Re:the article sez it's for securing prisons by dpidcoe · 2016-01-06 12:45 · Score: 1

Maybe we'll even see some mini-stealth.
I bet it wouldn't be too hard to make one with all the plastics technology available nowadays. If only I had an easily accessible radar to test against.
Re:the article sez it's for securing prisons by argumentsockpuppet · 2016-01-06 14:57 · Score: 1

Shame on you for thinking of ways to abuse the system! Next thing you know somebody will start making kits to build drones that can deliver contraband in spite of defensive measures. They'll use stealth (looks like a bird) and materials resistant to radar. Of course they'll also use a repeater that actually sends the control commands on varying pre-programmed and unusual frequencies and relay through wifi so that the operator can drop a drone off in one place (like a local McDonalds) and then control it from a thousand miles away (like the parking lot of a Starbucks in a different state.) The repeater will include a small incendiary device that triggers if it doesn't receive the pre-programmed encrypted keep-alive packets so that even if someone can pinpoint the control device, they won't be able to recover it or discover the operator. The successful contraband delivery operator will just land the drone on a building roof nearby and pay a local stooge to pick it up for them if the police are smart enough to stake out the drone rather than taking it.
When somebody does this stuff, they'll make a ton of money selling the products to "hobbyists" through the dark web. It'll cost a couple hundred dollars to make and sell for a couple thousand and it'll be all your fault for thinking of it.
What a warped mind you must have to put that idea for a highly lucrative criminal endeavor into the public discussion. To be fair though, it's partly Airbus' fault for creating the market.

This just in... by roc97007 · 2016-01-06 10:23 · Score: 5, Funny

A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.

When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 12:00 · Score: 0

A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
Interestingly, Airbus claims GPS spoofing, but not Galileo. Conspiracy? Or an indication from an insider how far behind schedule Galileo is...
Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 13:11 · Score: 0

A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
Link, or it didn't happen.
Re:This just in... by Lisias · 2016-01-06 13:17 · Score: 1

A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
Link, or it didn't happen.
Here!

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Re:This just in... by delt0r · 2016-01-07 21:50 · Score: 1

Even if it really does do GPS spoofing, it will only be for the civilian band. GPS in modern aircraft also use the military band. That turns out to be harder to jam and spoof.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:24 · Score: 0

Can build Machiavellian anti-drone system.... but can't seem to spring for polarized cockpit windows to eliminate the whole laser strike issue.

Re:So... by geoskd · 2016-01-06 10:52 · Score: 1

Can build Machiavellian anti-drone system.... but can't seem to spring for polarized cockpit windows to eliminate the whole laser strike issue.
Complex drone jamming and re-direction has potential military applications, and is likely an offshoot of an existing military project. Tinted windows: not so much.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted

Me Too! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:33 · Score: 1

I want one of these.

Drone problems will get worse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:33 · Score: 0

As we start seeing more commercial use of drones we will see rogue drones go off course, crash in bad weather, had mechanical failures, and will probably cause damage, injuries, and may even be sucked into a jet engine potentially risking a crash. We will also see terrorists begin to explore ways to use drones as suicide vehicles for attacks. What better way then to sacrifice a drone instead of a human. The FAA response to drones is laughable but then again. When has a government agency been on top of new technology. Regulating drones won't be easy and jamming equipment will only add to the problem. Its not a solution only a desperate means of addressing the impending issue because nobody else has got a clue.

Please tell me they named this new system... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:45 · Score: 0

Raspberry

Re:Please tell me they named this new system... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 13:34 · Score: 0

LONNNEEE STARRRRRR (a subsidiary of Boeing)

how does this system know the control freqs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 10:47 · Score: 0

It's possible to use just about any frequency to control a drone, so how can it know what the right ones are? There isn't a "drone control frequency" that is use for controlling drones and nothing else. Jamming signals may only be effective at completely cutting off control at 6 miles, but the jamming signals go a lot further than that, degrading service for anyone else using those frequencies for a lot longer distance.

6 miles at 300mph (a _slow_ airliner) is only about 1 min of travel time. That's not much time to react.

And even if you can jam the signal at 6 miles, how can you predict what the drone is going to do when it looses control?

Re:how does this system know the control freqs? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-06 12:36 · Score: 1

If you read the article, this is for drones of 55 lbs and less. The jamming is highly directional. The drone will do what it's programmed to do when it experiences a LoS - it will either return home or hover until the battery dies, or land. Considering that the Federal Bureau of Prisons wants these, they would love to ask you why you're operating a drone around a prison - and with this system, they can tell where the controller is.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

The Federal Bureau of Prison's request by latebeer · 2016-01-06 10:57 · Score: 1

Here's the Bureau of Prisons solicitation for such a system.

Does it also work against Cessna's? by tlambert · 2016-01-06 10:59 · Score: 1

Does it also work against Cessna's?

Re:Does it also work against Cessna's? by ScentCone · 2016-01-06 11:07 · Score: 1

Does it also work against Cessna's?
Against Cessna's what?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Does it also work against Cessna's? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 11:13 · Score: 1

Does it also work against Cessna's?
Against Cessna's what?
Cessna's Cessnas.

Because crashing a drone... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 11:16 · Score: 0

is a better option?

lasers by Threni · 2016-01-06 11:19 · Score: 2

Makes you wonder why all planes don't have laser detection systems. You know where the plane is, you can see where the laser is coming from; won't take many flights to build up a pattern of where the fuckwits who shine them at planes live and send the police round to shoot them.

Re:lasers by aberglas · 2016-01-06 12:19 · Score: 3

Because the lasers are really not much of a threat, despite the hype.
Re:lasers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 13:14 · Score: 1

Makes you wonder why all planes don't have laser detection systems. You know where the plane is, you can see where the laser is coming from; won't take many flights to build up a pattern of where the fuckwits who shine them at planes live and send the police round to shoot them.
They do, they are called pilots.
Bravo on the assumption that the police should just shoot them too. Seems perfectly proportionate. On an unrelated matter, I hope you don't mind if someone leaves a mirror in your yard. Totally unrelated, really.
Re:lasers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 05:53 · Score: 0

GP could be American. In the U.S., shooting is a perfectly ordinary response in essentially every situation.

GPS Spoofing? by cnaumann · 2016-01-06 12:25 · Score: 1

So the airplane is going to spoof GPS signals to a drone 6 miles away without causing any other problems?

Rockets beat Drones by aberglas · 2016-01-06 12:29 · Score: 1

Some day a 0.5Kg is going to fly within 10km of a heavy aircraft (that it would not even scratch) and it will be announced that the world will end.

But buy a few kg of perchlorate, make a 10kg rocket, add a couple of kg of ammonium nittrate and you have a different story.

The trick used to be how to control it so that it can find a target. But a Raspberry Pi with a small camera and some relatively simple software could easily identify an aeroplane against a blue sky. And shield it with a bit of aluminum foil.

The solution, of course, is to ban the sale of Raspbery Pis.

Take down an Airliner with a Drone? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 12:53 · Score: 1

I think the only place you would have any chance to harm an aircraft in flight with a drone would be right at an airport. Mind you it wouldn't be all that difficult. At our local airport people park just outside the fence so they can watch the planes take off and land. You can park right off the end of one of the main runways. Wait for an A320 to take off towards you. They will fly over the fence at about 400 foot altitude and at about 180 mph. The drone flies out the minivan sunroof, pops straight up to the right height and then aims for the nearest engine. With a bit of practice (yay simulators) you could probably hit it fairly reliably. The payload on a $500 drone is pretty minimal, but I bet 8 ounces of 3/16" tungsten drill rod in 3" pieces would mess up a jet engine something awful.

Re:Take down an Airliner with a Drone? by Max_W · 2016-01-06 19:22 · Score: 1

, but I bet 8 ounces of 3/16" tungsten drill rod in 3" pieces would mess up a jet engine something awful.
A criminal may just throw the damaging items into the air with a low-tech catapult. No need for a drone to commit a crime.

Nobody does it, however, because it is clear to anyone that it is a heineous crime to interfere with a taking off aircraft, and that it will not be just couple of months in prison at all.

Stealth Drones by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 13:01 · Score: 0

How long until we start seeing STEALTH drones?

Re:Stealth Drones by AJWM · 2016-01-06 15:27 · Score: 1

If you can see them, they're hardly stealthy.

--
-- Alastair

My Disabled Drone Landed on Neighbor by retroworks · 2016-01-06 13:27 · Score: 1

What the heck. I was just flying my drone I got for Christmas, and it mysteriously stopped working and landed on my neighbor's Mercedes and his daughter was in it. The neighbor's attorney is asking for my insurance company, but they said I need to contact Airbus. Heck.

--
Gently reply

Re:My Disabled Drone Landed on Neighbor by Fly+Swatter · 2016-01-06 13:52 · Score: 1

Don't operate said machinery if you are not equipped to deal with the possible consequences. 'You are responsible for all actions and non-actions (gravity taking over) of your drone'. Tee-Hee.

Drone Anti-Anti-Drone system ! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 14:54 · Score: 0

When something disturbing it signal, GO TOWARD IT SUPER FAST !

Let call that Drone Mine !

Re:It F* up like there autopilot has done in the p by edibobb · 2016-01-06 15:21 · Score: 1

their

This story is 3 months old. by edibobb · 2016-01-06 15:27 · Score: 1

https://airbusdefenceandspace....

oblig by aquabat · 2016-01-06 15:34 · Score: 1

Begun, the drone wars have.

--
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.

So they have to be autonomous... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 15:43 · Score: 0

So I just have to make my drone have autonomous functionality. "Sorry, your honor, when Airbus jammed the drone it reverted to its core programming and rode the beam right into the plane. This was intended to be a recovery mechanism in the case of failure." What could possibly go wrong?

Marketing again by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 16:08 · Score: 0

This is what happens when the marketing guys come down to the engineering department to see what the guys are working on.
Next thing you know there is a press release and the company is "rolling it out".

Airbus are NOT rolling this out.
Its an idea they are toiling with but there are mega implications that would require years of approvals before anyone got close to rolling it out.

You aren't going to see this on an A320 any time soon.

Re:It F* up like there autopilot has done in the p by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 17:46 · Score: 0

Well, if they can take control of the drone, and identify the (former) operator, one way to deal out punishment is to return drone to sender, with prejudice.

So many things wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 17:50 · Score: 0

1. It's not an anti-drone system. Everything except the slashdot summary says UAV/UAS. It's not anti-drone; these are not drones; this has nothing to do with drones.

2. The FCC has made it clear jamming is not allowed on US soil (or above it). They've disallowed it in prisons, on Federal Land, and in the air. So you can't jam prisoners' cellphones; you can't stop poachers from using FRS to coordinate in National Forests, and you can't stop people using airband transceivers outside of official use. That eliminates this system from the git-go.

It's nice they got a patent. Apple has squares with rounded corners. Perhaps they can get together over a campfire and sing Kumbaya.
I hope there's a UAS there to record the video and stream it.

G

Jammed UAV may fly unpredictably by Max_W · 2016-01-06 19:08 · Score: 1

In Europe an UAV may fly 5 km outside an airport and up to 150 meters. But six miles is almost 10 km. And how can they measure exactly, as the jam distance may depend on meteorological conditions. Sometimes it could be less, sometimes more.

If Airbus jams the drone’s communications, the drone may fly unpredictably. It may accelerate and damage property on the ground or even hurt people.

Basically Airbus takes control of the drone on itself, and with it comes the responsibility.

There was not a single serious accident with a drone (the one which you see on youtube is a fake). Because UAV pilots are not stupid. When we hear the sound of a low flying helicopter or airplane, we just decrease the UAV's altitude. And now they take it from us based on a phantasm.

But they're still afraid of mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 19:40 · Score: 0

Maybe on the next flight I should bring a powerful RF jamming device instead of a phone? Apparently they're safe to operate near airplanes.

Airbus vs drones vs Airbus vs.. by kangsterizer · 2016-01-06 19:57 · Score: 1

Just wait til the said drones implement the same technology, or another airbus jams another airbus.. and boom no more GPS, radio with the tower, radio guidance, etc.

Seems like fair game!

Drones, dogs best on the lash. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 20:37 · Score: 0

Jamming is probably ineffective. The experience with over 11,000 US-supplied TOW missiles in the Syria wahhabite terrorist invasion suggests that wired-guided control is jam-proof and reliably workable up to 4km. It uses a 3-thread cable: two copper for electric signalling and a kevlar-steel yarn for strenght. The zionists are now also manufacturing anti-ship missiles with wire guidance via optical fiber. Tethered drones will be the norm in a world with extensive radio jamming.

Re:This just in... (false amero-centric assumption by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-06 20:45 · Score: 0

> Interestingly, Airbus claims GPS spoofing, but not Galileo.

Please note that GPS is a generic term for "Global Poisitioning System" and it doesn't apply nationality. The american version is called NAVSTAR, the russian is Glonass, the chinese is BeiDou and the european is Galileo (the latter two still being under construction).

The reason why the Navstar system is called GPS colloquially by most people is, that after the collapse of USSR the russians didn't have funds to maintain/finish the Glonass system and it ceased to provide global coverage, thus the american system remained the only "global" one for about 10 years before Vlad Putin got russian act together.

That part about using RF by kilodelta · 2016-01-06 22:01 · Score: 1

Serious no-no in the FCC's view. Good luck with that Airbus.

Great Idea. Any Iranians? by NReitzel · 2016-01-07 00:11 · Score: 1

Gosh, jamming and spoofing GPS for a drone.

Why, you could almost use that to bring down a highly secured military drone using well outdated DES technology it were (say) flying over Iran taking pictures.

Great Job!

--

Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

Nets by StikyPad · 2016-01-07 00:45 · Score: 1

This may be useful for remotely-controlled drones, but it's useless against autonomous drones, such as those being developed by Amazon for delivery. It's only a matter of time before someone hooks up an Arduino (or whatever the kids are using these days) and sets a GPS target with a payload attached. It's difficult to think of a defense against that that isn't easily overcome by numbers and/or altitude. Maybe nets encapsulating high value targets...

Nets: They're like fences, only entanglier.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

What about a control relay? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 02:12 · Score: 0

If you are concerned about the drone pilot being located, how about setting up a battery-operated relay point? The human pilot communicates with the relay point via some other frequency (or spread-spectrum comm), and the relay communicates with the drone at 2.4GHz. That way, if the feds come a-lookin', all they can home in on is the relay xmitter.

Anti-anti-drone systems! by xenobyte · 2016-01-07 02:16 · Score: 1

The logical next step! :)

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --

So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-07 02:58 · Score: 0

Now that the FAA basically classifies even small "drones" as aircraft and the operators pilots I'm thinking we've got problems well beyond the typical legalities of jamming RF transmissions.

Slashdot Mirror

Airbus Rolls Out Anti-Drone System (networkworld.com)

168 comments