Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the air-superiority dept.

coondoggie writes: The Airbus anti-drone system employs infrared cameras, radar technology and sensors to spot and track drones over six miles away, the company says. If the incoming drone is considered suspicious, the system can use electronic signals to jam the drone's communications and more: “Based on an extensive threat library and real-time analysis of control signals, a jammer interrupts the link between drone and pilot and/or its navigation. Furthermore, the direction finder tracks the position of the pilot who subsequently can be dealt with by law enforcement. Due to the Smart Responsive Jamming Technology developed by Airbus Defence and Space, the jamming signals are blocking only the relevant frequencies used to operate the drone while other frequencies in the vicinity remain operational. 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. This allows effective and specific jamming and, therefore, a takeover of the UAV,” the company stated.

21 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. What could go wrong? by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:What could go wrong? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

    2. Re:What could go wrong? by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · 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.

    3. Re:What could go wrong? by DanielRavenNest · · 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.

    4. Re:What could go wrong? by Hylandr · · 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.
    5. Re:What could go wrong? by TheDarkMaster · · 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
    6. Re:What could go wrong? by Translation+Error · · 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.
  2. That a better answer than stopping sales by Ravaldy · · 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.

    1. Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by Obfuscant · · 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.

    2. Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      The GPS signals, GLONASS signals, Galileo signals or BeiDou signals?

    3. Re:That a better answer than stopping sales by BarbaraHudson · · 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.
  3. April fool's day? by Obfuscant · · 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.

    1. Re:April fool's day? by bugnuts · · 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.

    2. Re:April fool's day? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

  4. This just in... by roc97007 · · 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.
  5. Re:Will it really work on non-RC drones? by bobbied · · 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
  6. Re:jamming by sexconker · · 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.

  7. lasers by Threni · · 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.

    1. Re:lasers by aberglas · · Score: 3

      Because the lasers are really not much of a threat, despite the hype.

  8. Re:Seems like a lot of range. by BarbaraHudson · · 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.
  9. Re:So at first... by plover · · 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