Slashdot Mirror


ISIS Is Using Exploding Consumer Drones To Kill Enemy Fighters (theverge.com)

According to The New York Times, the Islamic State is using small consumer drones rigged with explosions to fight Kurdish forces in Iraq. As a result, American commanders in Iraq have issued a warning to forces fighting ISIS to treat any type of small flying aircraft as potential explosive devices. The Verge reports: The small, commercially available drone was shot down in Northern Iraq and taken back to an outpost, the Times writes. But during disassembly, the drone exploded, killing the two fighters. Le Monde reports that two members of French forces were also injured by the explosion. The technique used by ISIS in the attack may have been a simple one -- ultimately only combining two widely available pieces of tech -- but videos available online have purportedly shown other recent instances of drones used as explosives, suggesting the move may be one we see more of in the future.

221 comments

  1. I think there was a comic villain who did this by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    The Aviator or something. He was stopped by The Flash when trying to fly a remote controlled plane full of dynamite into Central City Hal.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool).

      It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight.

      I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.

    2. Re: I think there was a comic villain who did this by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      The original grand theft auto had a mission where you have a remote control car filled with explosives too

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by wasted · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.

      I remember seeing the idea in a crime/detective drama or two in the late 70s or early 80s, using R/C airplanes.

    4. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of this episode of The Gray Ghost, but I can't seem to find a copy anywhere.

    5. Re: I think there was a comic villain who did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dark star? "Thermostellar bomb #20". Trying to discourage a sentient explosive device from detonating by having philosophical decisions and Zen meditation.

    6. Re: I think there was a comic villain who did this by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Hell, the GTA mission where you piloted an RC helicopter to plant explosives on a building site...

    7. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      > I think there was a comic villain who did this

      You're thinking of the Dallas police department.

      http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

    8. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      But that is a remote controlled plane, not a drone. There is a difference... I am not sure what it is, but there seems to be one. Because Remote Controlled Airplanes were a fun hobby for aircraft enthusiasts. While drones is an obsession for people with malicious purposes, which needs a lot of registration and regulations.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      While drones is a time waster for complete fucking inconsiderate idiots who think they're the center of the universe, which needs a lot of registration and regulations.

      FTFY

    10. Re: I think there was a comic villain who did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll change your tune when the pizza deliveries start. Once the downdraught starts wafting that fresh pizza aroma round your neighbourhood, you'll be on the phone within hours.

    11. Re: I think there was a comic villain who did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to people who only talk about their country like no other exists...

    12. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I always liked Antonion Banderas's explosives-filled guitar case on wheels from Desperado.

    13. Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

      I think it was part of a plot in the series "Persons of Interest" which predates DeadPool (movie).

  2. Only surprise is that it has taken so long by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems like it would be dead simple to include as payload some kind of plastic explosives into a drone, and quickly delivery it to an otherwise unreachable target.. if a drone is moving fast and erratically enough, how could you even shoot it down? And in a city, would you even be able to try shooting it down?

    You have to figure the army already has some kind of anti-drone nets they don't want to talk about yet...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was exactly the thought i had when i read the title.

      I suspect it would be easy to counter given most of the RF protocols used are open and easily hacked so control can be hijacked

    2. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hijacked or jammed and it reverts to hover mode.

      The real fun starts when you make them home in on the IR laser dot automatically. Stage after that is they can pick the proper face or remember who the dot was on. The weakness is still they they are remotely controlled and not truly autonomous but that weakness is fading real fast.

    3. Re: Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will have C&C style anti aircraft/drone stations very soon.
      Expect automatic targetting and destruction of any unknown flying device.

    4. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by perpenso · · Score: 1

      if a drone is moving fast and erratically enough, how could you even shoot it down?

      Shotgun, hunting loads for duck, geese. Maybe we'll see some long barreled shotguns being issued to troops. Or maybe 40mm rounds for M203s, they have buckshot rounds, they would just need some large bird shot rounds?

    5. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its economics. A consumer drone costs $1000, compared to RPG grenades which were selling for $100, but now $500 according to the CSM:

      http://www.csmonitor.com/World...

      As the war drags on, and munitions prices rise, alternatives become more attractive.

      how could you even shoot it down? And in a city, would you even be able to try shooting it down?

      Shotgun. And seriously? Afraid of disturbing the peace in Aleppo?

    6. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Aleppo?

    7. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Despite what the New York Times editors may have told you, Aleppo is not where Islamic State operates.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by johannesg · · Score: 2

      How does ISIS even get such equipment? Apparently _somebody_ is _still_ delivering high-tech toys into that part of the world...

    9. Re: Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some camera drones have a "target module" that the drone should follow and head for if it runs low on power.

    10. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does ISIS even get such equipment? Apparently _somebody_ is _still_ delivering high-tech toys into that part of the world...

      You should look into how modern wars actually look.
      Just because there is war going on in a city doesn't mean that you can't sit on a bench and eat ice-cream in another part of the city.
      Want high-tech toys? Order them to an address in a town where the war isn't going on and pick them up there.

    11. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Gryle · · Score: 2

      ISIS has a surprisingly sophisticated logistics chain: http://www.reuters.com/article... The study referenced in the article is found here: http://www.conflictarm.com/pub...

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    12. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      It's Australian slang for an Ayrab immigrant.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And shooting it down in a city accomplishes little if your enemy only wants it to explode SOMEWHERE.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones $1000? More like $50.

      It's not that they need to be reusable or even very accurate ar any range.

    15. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://youtu.be/WP33crds1tI

    16. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by houghi · · Score: 1

      That would be an expensive quadcopter for enduser use with a 4K camera for that prce. You also don't need to re-buy the radio.

      And instead of the quadcopter, perhaps they are just using RC aircraft. Buy the motor, a battery and a receiver and you are able to build one yourself with local materials pretty easy.

      Add some RVP and you are easily able to fly them several miles away. 25 miles is not unheard of. And as you do not need to worry about the return flight, you can add less batteries and/or more payload.

      There are plenty of forums, sites and videos all over the place to find out how to do that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, technically they were just ordering books. Blame Amazon and their drone delivery service...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And consider that slightly more expensive drones can be pre-programmed with paths along GPS coordinates. It would not be difficult to launch a swarm of fifty of these from various locations at the same time. Even if you knew it was coming you couldn't shoot them all down. I'm nearly certain the next -major- attack (along the lines of 9/11, something more complicated than a few guys with weapons and a truck filled with explosives) will involve quadcopters. And shortly after, they will be heavily restricted.

    19. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1000? Pfft, maybe for a box-store piece of shit. A drone capable of carrying a few kg of payload can be built for less than $150 using off-the-shelf parts and some pieces of wood. That's with high-end components, a throwaway could probably be done for less than $100 easily. A radio is about $50 and would be reusable.

    20. Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Prime membership with one-click turned on.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  3. "rigged with explosions" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Must be delicate work.

  4. innovative by supernova87a · · Score: 5, Funny

    I almost misread it as "using consumer phones" and was really impressed that they were arming the drones with Samsung Galaxy Note 7s to explode on demand.

    1. Re: innovative by sys64764 · · Score: 1

      rflmao

    2. Re:innovative by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I almost misread it as "using consumer phones" and was really impressed that they were arming the drones with Samsung Galaxy Note 7s to explode on demand.

      It's very convenient. In the old days you had to wire an explosive to the ringer so that it would blow up when you call it. Now, you just have to call it.

    3. Re:innovative by Desler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Aww a Samsung employee is butthurt.

    4. Re:innovative by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Now, now. Don't exaggerate. That (probably) won't blow a Samsung phone. You'd have to share a link to a power hungry game so the victim's phone draws enough current to set off the battery.

    5. Re:innovative by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Hey, I love my Samsung Galaxy S5, but fuck are they ever screwing up with the Note 7's batteries. Of course they deserve the mockery that they're getting.

      I was on an airplane yesterday and during the safety instructions they were very emphatic that if we had a Note 7, it had to stay completely powered off the entire time until we disembarked.

  5. Rumor has it... by infernalC · · Score: 2, Funny

    that these drones are armed with a zip-tied Samsung Galaxy Note 7. They have a side loaded app which photo-identifies the target and then fork-bombs... /me ducks...

    1. Re:Rumor has it... by houghi · · Score: 1

      They use Apple for navigation.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Rumor has it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, they are more vile than I had thought.

  6. Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sure they're not just using a Galaxy Note 7 for remote C&C?

  7. Would not fly in Ukraine by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    When Ukrainian forces try to use consumer-grade drones in their fight against Russian invaders, the devices are often intercepted by Russia's sophisticated radio-electronic warfare units. They are good enough to fool even American military equipment on occasion.

    Had Russia really been fighting ISIS in Syria, they would've sent the same technology (and personnel) there.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Had Russia really been fighting ISIS in Syria, they would've sent the same technology (and personnel) there.

      What bullshit. Because really where does that leave the US? Though you may argue they don't either and that no-one is fighting ISIS.

      These drones likely posses/have posed no/very small risk to Russian forces and this isn't Russian soil or close to it and I have no idea what the range are of these devices and so on but ..

      Since the commercial drones most likely used legal to use bands and communication and the military likely have developed methods to shut those channels down sure, fine. Maybe they just haven't had the intention to shut all such communication down in all of Syria yet.

      Not necessarily to preserve ISIS.

    2. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia's conventional military is a shell of what it used to be and the resources they have committed in the Ukraine and Syria has them stretched thin. Their military can put pressure on their neighbors and in Syria they have committed a small number of jets that have resorted to basically carpet bombing an entire city to make them look tougher than they are.
      Russia's nuclear forces are the only thing giving them any cards to play on the international geo-political landscape. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. While the US and China wields some serious military AND financial leverage to get what they want.

    3. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by mvdwege · · Score: 0

      The contortions the American Right go to to defend a fascist (yes, he is) dictator like Putin show where their true sympathies lie.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    4. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by mi · · Score: 1

      Because really where does that leave the US?

      That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.

      But for Putin, a fascist dictator, military is what he can do. And, in power for over 16 years already, he had much longer to learn.

      Not necessarily to preserve ISIS.

      Putin's plan is to eliminate all other anti-Assad forces in Syria — and then ask the world to choose between Assad and ISIS. Until he is done with everybody else, weakening the Caliphate-seeking assholes will remain counterproductive for him.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by aliquis · · Score: 1

      As I view it it's no more weird than Assad ruling the nation.

      I wonder if nations such as my own would support a native (Swedish) uprising against the overlords (the Swedish government, media and the EU.) ... I assume not.-
      Sweden too is a non-free non-democratic fascist state.

    6. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by gtall · · Score: 1

      I don't think he'll ask the world to choose between Assad and Daesh. Rather, he thinks the U.S. and the Kurds and the Iraqis will nail Daesh...with that spoiled twat Erdogan running around with his bloomers on fire claiming it was all due to Turkey. Erdogan figures he'll be leader of the Sunnis in that area after Daesh goes away. Putin is cuddling up to Erdogan because he realizes he's pissed off the Sunnis by siding with Iran and their Shi'ite lapdogs in Syria and Lebanon. Putin figures he'll muddy the opposition to his Syria and Lebanon positions. All of this is directed towards reducing American influence in the region because as you mentioned, he's a fascist who really has no claim to fame except his military adventures. The Baltics are next.

      Putin thinks he'll have the piece of Syria he cares about, the one with ports on the Med. and a few airbases. This puts him in a position to protect Hezbollah when they start the next war with Israel. Well, he thinks he can. Israel probably sees right through this and they won't have a foreign policy wimp like Obama running their country. If Israel decided to remove Putin's bases from the Mideast during a war with Hezbollah, there's not squat Putin could do about it short of declaring all out war....which sucks for him since he has little airlift capability, his nukes are useless, with any luck his blood pressure would rise until he had a heart attack and the cleaning lady does his office in the morning carefully working around the corpse...just like his hero, Stalin.

    7. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fix for that is the same issue the HARM weapon dealt with.

      You have an active jammer, you build the device to lock onto said jammer and fly right at it. Since it's likely they can shoot down a few, send a few DOZEN.
      Make sure their time on target is the same and, just for good measure, make sure they come in from all directions.

    8. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then again, US logistics is a lot more complicated and expensive than Russian. As a friend of mine and former GDR soldier said "Never ever go to war with Russia. Russians are nuts! The Russian soldier needs three things to fight until the death: A loaf of bread, a side of bacon and a direction."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The contortions the American Right go to to defend a fascist (yes, he is) dictator like Putin show where their true sympathies lie.

      The contortions of the American Left for refusing to denounce Islamofascism show where their true sympathies lie.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    10. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by dywolf · · Score: 1

      its neither well known nor true.
      this is no different than when when you insisted we were doing nothing about ISIS, even though at the time of that comment we had been bombing them for over a year.

      you want Occam's razor? ok: you're a troll who revels in his ignorance.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    11. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      And Right still correlates with Stupid.

      I am not, and never have been, part of the American Left.

      Now go recite Trump talking points at your friends, Polly.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    12. Re: Would not fly in Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and a bottle of vodka.

      FTFY.

    13. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I'm a NeverTrump.

      Failed again. You assume too much.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    14. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.

      The situation in Syria isn't that hard to explain. Obama and the US was quite happy and capable of blowing Assad's forces to smithereens until the Russians got involved, started providing bombing support and cover for them, and made it very clear that they were militarily defending Assad from the rebels and.. well, anyone. Putin knew, of course, that the US wanted to take Assad out, but that Assad was clearly not worth starting a war with Russia over. Russia greatly favors having an ally Assad there -- whether he slaughters his citizens or not is something they don't care about, as the lives of the people are a dictator's to spend or preserve at his discretion.

      The US has no real allies in Syria, though just... some rebels? I rarely agree with Trump on anything, but he was right about a few things: who are these rebels, exactly? Do we really know who they are and what they want to fight for? We have a long history of failed military proxy campaigns in the region, where we support X against Y, and then X turns out to be far worse and a bigger disaster than Y ever was. Our "regime change" ways usually blow up in our face, whether it's supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, or most any action taken in the Arab Spring nonsense.

    15. Re:Would not fly in Ukraine by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you were a Trump supporter. I told you to go repeat right-wing talking points, and I used the most visible right-winger in the US right now as a shorthand.

      You know it is possible to use language for more than straight description, don't you?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    16. Re: Would not fly in Ukraine by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A bottle of vodka per three soldiers. Tradition is important, too!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. GoPro Drones + Exploding Note7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmm

    1. Re:GoPro Drones + Exploding Note7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not simply use an android drone?
      Or are you just here to advertise a specific camera brand?

  9. Next up by somenickname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Next up is self driving cars full of explosives. One of the things that always fascinates me about these middle eastern terrorist organizations is that they are pretty smart about adapting to technology but, the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology. It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"

    1. Re: Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't happen in a truly free market. The cost of explosives would skyrocket, rendering terrorism uneconomical.

    2. Re:Next up by Kjella · · Score: 1

      One of the things that always fascinates me about these middle eastern terrorist organizations is that they are pretty smart about adapting to technology but, the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology. It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"

      Uh, you do realize there was a time when Islamic scholars were the best in the world and Europe was in the Dark Ages? They're not Amish, they're not against technology they're against many of the freedoms we have. So was Soviet Russia, they still invented Sputnik and freaked out the US. China isn't exactly a backwater hellhole either, neither is Saudi Arabia despite their ultra-conservative Wahhabism. Now obviously Daesh are revolutionaries and their goal is to fight and win, they need soldiers and martyrs not scientists and teachers. What you see today isn't representative of what society would be like if they won, it wouldn't be pretty but it wouldn't be all Quran studies, combat training and IEDs.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh no.

      The Arab Golden Age was BEFORE the rise of the barbaric Islamic death cult.

      Islam doomed the arabs (and everyone else it touched) to 1300 years of retardation.

    4. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, you do realize there was a time when Islamic scholars were the best in the world and Europe was in the Dark Ages?
       
      Oh Lort! Here we go again... Why don't you just scream about the crusades while you're at it? Because that's what people like you do anytime modern fundamentalism is brought to question. Willfully ignorant, that's what you are.
       
        They're not Amish, they're not against technology
       
      The Amish aren't against technology in and of itself either. So much for your understanding of world cultures.

    5. Re: Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err... You might want to reexamine your views and take a look at history. A lot of tech came from the old Islamic countries and empires. Does the word algebra ring a bell? How about alchemy? The list goes on and on. I am not sure what it is that you think you know but, at least historically, they did a great deal in furthering the knowledge we humans have in things like science and medicine. It isn't cool to say so but the Catholic church also did a shit ton of advancement.

    6. Re: Next up by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't need terrorism, the US would collapse into civil war.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    7. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's a myth. The less militant Islamic factions of the past hired the best scholars and engineers. The more militant Islamic factions later killed off those scholars and engineers.

    8. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing two societies separated by over 1000 years. Islamic Arabs invaded the most advanced part of the world. Many scientists and poets who were primarily the already advanced people like Persians and Anatolians led the way for the early Muslim society. Over the years the influence of religious over scientific thought resulted in the previously advanced areas becoming intellectual backwaters. Todays Arab invaded and Muslim oriented countries are a bit of a mix. There is some science in Iran but the rest is mainly backwater. Crickets chirping. Literally nothing of note happening. So your conclusion that society under the fundamentalists might have some science seems entirely unsupported and extremely unlikely.

    9. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you said is true, but on top of that, Islam in itself isn't necessarily any more ass-backwards than any other religion. It's the culture and circumstances around it that cause the problem more than anything. Westernized Islam is fine.

    10. Re:Next up by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"

      To the "true believer," Allah IS the endgame. Any action can be justified or shot down by whether you think Allah wants it. It doesn't matter how suicidal or self-destructive the action.

  10. Dude from Kentucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send that drone shooting dude from Kentucky over there. He's got the experience to do the job.

  11. Put Samsung batteries in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just put Samsung batteries in the drone!

  12. This would solve the drone trespassing questions by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they did a few of those exploding drones here, we would finally have a quick and definite answer to how to deal with trespassing drones.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  13. So which way does this go? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

    Robotics on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it.

    I mean look at that show BattleBots on ABC. And these weaponized remote control 'bots' had rules about what sorts of weaponry was allowed, weight limits.

    Cool show by the way.

    But my question goes something like this: Does the evolution of robotics in warfare, does it lead to using robotics to kill human enemies, or does it evolve to where we start using robotic warfare in a mutual type thing and take humans completely out of it? I mean look at the US aerial drones, we've taken the human partially out of this robotic form of warfare. The pilot is in no danger of harm, and is becoming less and less needed as AI gets better to the point we going to be able to say, punch in coordinates and time and tell our drone to launch a missile at that coordinate and at that time.

    I wonder how long until we get to something like A Taste of Armageddon.

    1. Re:So which way does this go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You remind me of a stupid TV commercial where some teenage boy disagrees with a teenage girl which causes them to get upset and open up their gameboys to battle it out using a pokemon-ish monster fighting game.

      I always laughed at that commercial because in real life people do not play chess when they get angry, usually they just prefer to punch the other guy or slap them or cause physical harm with sharp and abrupt movements.

      Similar to being unable to hang up on someone "hard" with cell phones where as with old phones you could really slam it down in the base, we lack any kind of enjoyment without a physical aspect, bonus points for pain.

      So no, this is false.... people will *not* bring out their robot when they disagree with you, they would rather go around it and physically harm you. Primal instincts and all....

    2. Re:So which way does this go? by somenickname · · Score: 1

      Robotics on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it.

      Why? That's like saying nuclear weapons on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it. But, thankfully, more rational heads have prevailed and they are not commonplace on the battlefield. I actually think that drones are just as dangerous on the battlefield as nuclear weapons launched from missile silos. The "boom" isn't as terrifying to see but, the effect is the same on a smaller scale: Armchair warfare. War without risk of causalities to both sides isn't war. In fact, it's basically terrorism.

    3. Re:So which way does this go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, things are fine. In civilized nations, we've got standards these days. It's not like we've seen our domestic police forces using remotely operated robots armed with high explosive charges to terminate soft targets. Such acts are beyond all possibility here. Things are fine. -PCP

    4. Re:So which way does this go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion, rich modern countries will eventually eliminate humans from warfare by law/treaty. Sort of like how everyone now agrees to avoid certain types of weapons that are particularly nasty. If one person starts using them, a bunch of unrelated parties will (theoretically) step in and say "woah, hold on" and make them stop.

      You'll essentially just be sending various types of robots to hold key areas. On the way and while they're there they will destroy other robots. A balance of building the most efficient robots and having the most resources with which to build them will win you the war. Pretty much just like today, but with a slightly higher emphasis on attrition.

    5. Re:So which way does this go? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Why? That's like saying nuclear weapons on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it. But, thankfully, more rational heads have prevailed and they are not commonplace on the battlefield. I actually think that drones are just as dangerous on the battlefield as nuclear weapons launched from missile silos. The "boom" isn't as terrifying to see but, the effect is the same on a smaller scale: Armchair warfare. War without risk of causalities to both sides isn't war. In fact, it's basically terrorism.

      And in fact, nuclear weapons were used the moment they were viable weapons. Twice in fact. Did you forget about that? We stopped using them because we decided they are too destructive. They're not really a viable weapon because they're too powerful, and leave nuclear fallout. Not very useful if you're hoping to capture enemy cities, infrastructure and resources.

      Robotics on the other hand doesn't seem to raise to the level of horrific that nuclear weapons do. They also don't leave fallout.

      In short, comparing nuclear weapons to weaponized remote controlled robotics isn't really quite a fair comparison.

    6. Re:So which way does this go? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Why? That's like saying nuclear weapons on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it. But, thankfully, more rational heads have prevailed and they are not commonplace on the battlefield. I actually think that drones are just as dangerous on the battlefield as nuclear weapons launched from missile silos. The "boom" isn't as terrifying to see but, the effect is the same on a smaller scale: Armchair warfare. War without risk of causalities to both sides isn't war. In fact, it's basically terrorism.

      Sorry to reply twice, but also wanted to bring up the point, that through out human history, every technology we seem to come up with tends to get used in warfare. Just some more recent examples: Automobiles -> Tanks. Rocketry -> Missiles. Flight -> Fighter Planes, Bombers. Naval building -> Larger, better warships, submarines.

      Hell the moment we figured out how to sharpen something into a weapon, we started killing with it.

  14. Sooo.... by dohzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they're doing what virtually any military is doing, but on the cheap?

    1. Re:Sooo.... by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Not cheap. Too expensive compared to the alternatives. It's an overpriced terror weapon or at best a special ops / assassination weapon.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  15. This is why Europeans aren't in ISIS by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Aviator or something. He was stopped by The Flash when trying to fly a remote controlled plane full of dynamite into Central City Hal.

    Just as they are ready to blow it up, the drone would say to the operator: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:This is why Europeans aren't in ISIS by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      Allrighty then ... instead of saving tin foil hats ... now save your old microwaves for the war effort.
      rig that EMP !
      granted ... it could give you cancer over time but face the choice between exploding now or dying from excruciating pain later
      whats not to like
      gotta give it to the motherfuckers ... they're fucking inventive

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  16. in other words by nimbius · · Score: 1

    the New York Times --your officially sanctioned regime mouthpiece-- has instructed you to discontinue your intolerable dissent against drone regulation and registration now that $CURRENT_TERROR_TARGET has begun using $CURRENT_FUN_THING to attack (freedom || liberty || children || values)

    so remember, terrorism is everywhere and given that you are of course incapable of accepting even a modicum of inconvenience or risk, the state must take its rightful place as the teat from which we all collectively suckle our valium.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a fucking idiot

  17. In other news... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 0

    Governor Jerry Brown signed into California state law that bans of all drones. Senate President Kevin de León who sponsored the bill spoke in a press conference following the signing "It's absolutely critical that we protect the citizens from accidental injuries terrorist attacks. Each year drones kill and maim thousands of Americans. Today we say in unison, this is unacceptable, we will not tolerate it anymore."

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill citation please! Drones are NOT banned in CA ya troll.

    2. Re:In other news... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      The esteemed Mr. Butthead seems to be referencing the law California passed last year against using paparazzi drones to spy on celebrities, which was indeed sponsored by Kevin de León and signed into law by Jerry Brown. Though the quote is of course fabricated.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/drones/guns/
      s/factual/satire/
      s/you/someone who has a clue/

  18. They'll be using Galaxy Note 7s next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exploding consumer drones and exploding consumer phones

    1. Re: They'll be using Galaxy Note 7s next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next, breakfast cereals??

  19. surprised cheap drone could carry a lethal payload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the cheaper ones can't lift very much. what's the "warhead"? c4? could a few grams of c4 kill someone?

  20. Really? by raind · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the scoop Nyt /. - more wall building should fix that I tell you what.

    --
    Get up!
  21. Payload? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    I've never owned, much less flown a drone. But I get the impression they just might be able to carry 2 lbs payload. So, say 1 lb low energy explosive (cuz they can't get C4 and such), and 1 lb bbs.

    Not seeing how that can do much damage, out side of the fear factor.

    1. Re:Payload? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      I've never owned, much less flown a drone. But I get the impression they just might be able to carry 2 lbs payload. So, say 1 lb low energy explosive (cuz they can't get C4 and such), and 1 lb bbs. Not seeing how that can do much damage, out side of the fear factor.

      The whole point of terrorism *is* the fear factor. All someone has to do is pull this stunt on a large mass of people, say a stadium during a sports event, and you will see the US go collectively crazy. If we really had terrorism (hint, we don't) then this would have been done already.

      Regarding how little real damage is done, recall that every month cars kill as many people as 9/11 did. Moreover every year illegals kill that many US citizens between murders and alcohol related car crashes. In the US we don't do a good job of evaluating absolute damage or risk. The absolute damage isn't important, just the novelty of it. Bonus points if it shows well on TV.

    2. Re:Payload? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      One of these could carry a dreaded Galaxy Note 7. This would flatly violate the Geneva Convention, but ISIS loves weapons that do that.

    3. Re: Payload? by bestweasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Recall also that every month guns kill nearly as many people as 9/11 did.

    4. Re:Payload? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never owned, much less flown a drone. But I get the impression they just might be able to carry 2 lbs payload.

      A sub-$200 homebuilt 450-size quadcopter which weighs ~700g using a 4S battery pack can have a takeoff weight of around 2 kilos. So you could carry a bit more than a 2lb payload, but not much. However, the price/performance ratio as a terror weapon is staggering. I built my SK450 for $120 including the radio. We're talking about a GPS-guided delivery system for around a hundred dollars each, since you can reuse one TX over and over. The six channel RX is only ten bucks. The radio is forty. Or if you get fancy, you might spend eighty. IF you spend more than $13 on the frame, you can get the weight down quite a bit.

      Not seeing how that can do much damage, out side of the fear factor.

      The fear factor is the whole point of terrorism. This is a cheap and relatively non-traceable means of carrying it out, which is why I'm always surprised it isn't happening a lot more. Glad, but surprised.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Payload? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down before he gives anybody any ideas. :(

    6. Re:Payload? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not add a servo to be able to drop the munition. Then you have a precise GPS guided bomb delivery device that is reusable. Also might be an interesting way to deliver boobytrap munitions overnight under cover of darkness.

    7. Re: Payload? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns kill exactly zero people.

    8. Re: Payload? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      And drones don't kill people and cars don't kill people. Is that all you have?

    9. Re:Payload? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And even if you can somehow trace it, manpower isn't really the big problem of terrorism. Lives are cheap. And expendable.

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

      If they can get access to a drone, they can either :

      1. Order the right chemicals for high grade explosives and synthesize them. You know that ANFO is high explosive, right? Any idiot with the 2 ingredients can make some. I _think_ the fertilizer has gotten hard to come by but I can't say for sure.

      2. Extract high grade plastic explosive from other munitions in a war zone. Artillery shells, mines, RPG warheads - whatever they can get their hands on.

      1 lb is a hand grenade. And it could probably be molded into a claymore style shaped charge aimed downwards so that it makes more efficient use of the blast.

    11. Re: Payload? by operagost · · Score: 1

      And most of them are suicides, or cops shooting people.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Payload? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it's not like there is a news article in a major US newspaper that says the same thing.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re:Payload? by somenickname · · Score: 1

      Drones are a real game changer for guerrilla warfare or terrorism. A nation state might spend millions or billions doing satellite/aerial reconnaissance but, a small fleet of cheap drones with GoPros on gimbals and off the shelf software can produce extremely detailed orthomosaics for a hilariously tiny fraction of what a nation state might spend to get similar recon. You can't cover a huge amount of territory and, yeah, some will be shot down but, if you are dug in against an enemy or looking for a soft target, I imagine it's just as good as satellite imagery.

  22. can't have nice things... by doug141 · · Score: 2

    Just wait and see what they do with self-driving trucks.

    1. Re:can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcUi5_eNoqk

      Captcha: giggles

    2. Re:can't have nice things... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Just wait and see what they do with self-driving trucks.

      At the beginning of the autonomous-vehicle era, there were a few (FBI? CIA?) guys warning about "but they could easily be used for terrorist activities", but they all went away -- I suspect they were "sushed" to death.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    3. Re:can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      similar, it was not 100% possible to self drive, so "stop restricting creativity for your naysayer attitude". The only way to achieve a similar result currently is with an automated vehicle using satellite uplink (traceable, limited # of satellites plus lag) or direct wireless (limited range, perp must be in the area and probably needed line of sight-ish. This is not terribly different from the suicide bomber scenario and in many ways better because the perp survives and can be questioned).

      It was also not considered reasonable because Daesh / Al Queda / Hamas / Taliban / etc. had plenty of suicide volunteers which are much cheaper and more reliable than the vehicular control electronics.

    4. Re:can't have nice things... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      So this is what happens when they run out of people willing to sacrifice their one and only life for Allah.

      In some way this could be a "good" thing. It shows that they've lost enough numbers and fanatics that suicide attacks aren't as attractive as before. It wasn't that long ago we could read about them using children and the mentally handicapped to carry their suicide weapons. I suspect that this practice ended right quick as it proved very unpopular. These people may be depraved lunatics but it seems they have limits to their depravity.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has there ever been a shortage of manpower for suicide missions?

  23. No surprise here. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering when they would start using unmanned suicide drones. Is this because they've gotten smart or they started valuing their own fighters lives over the cost of a consumer quadcopter?

    1. Re:No surprise here. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      ISIS is collapsing from within - recruitment has fallen, and struggling commanders are desperate for any advantage even if it comes from using western toys. I hope they all die soon, preferably in fires created by the people they've been enslaving.

    2. Re:No surprise here. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Moreover, this was inevitable. ISIS, for all its propaganda, was nothing more than the Sunni kicked out of Bagdad, and they wanted it back.

      Propaganda only works for so long. Beyond a certain point you have exhausted your pool of volunteers who don't look at what exactly they're fighting for, and at that point your terror-based propaganda starts working against you.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:No surprise here. by Archtech · · Score: 1

      ISIS is "essence of Saudi", leaking out of the Kingdom and spreading slowly across other people's lands to convert them all to Wahhabism (or kill them). Think it through, and you' see that ISIS is just a microcosm of Saudi Arabia. The obvious differences are having a caliph instead of a king, and having no fixed borders. Both great advantages when you are in the conquest'n'conversion business.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    4. Re:No surprise here. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      You bought into the propaganda. For heavens sake, think! What is the name of ISIS' putative leader? al-Baghdadi: "The Man from Baghdad".

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    5. Re:No surprise here. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I hope they all die soon, preferably in fires created by the people they've been enslaving.

      Agreed. Hopefully they meet a similar fate as their captured combatants. As terrible as it is, they got pretty creative with horrifying executions. I wonder if I'll see a video of their own "methods" being used on them.

    6. Re:No surprise here. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You bought into the propaganda. For heavens sake, think! What is the name of ISIS' putative leader? al-Baghdadi: "The Man from Baghdad".

      ISIS is just another variation of the same crap that's been happening through the entire region for decades. Yesterday it was al-Qaeda, today it's ISIS, tomorrow it will be something different related to Salafysm.

  24. Actual example by bongey · · Score: 1

    Looks like they are just using regular airplane frames, this is skywalker x8 about 200 bucks. About 1/100 of a US drone probably
    https://sputniknews.com/world/...

  25. It was done in WW2 by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.

    It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re: It was done in WW2 by bestweasel · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of them was the most world-changing drone so far.

      ... the project was dangerous, expensive and unsuccessful. Of 14 missions flown, none resulted in the successful destruction of a target. Many aircraft lost control and crashed or were shot down by flak, and many pilots were killed. However, a handful of aircraft scored near misses. One notable pilot death was that of Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., the elder brother of future US President John F. Kennedy.

    2. Re:It was done in WW2 by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets.

      Joe Kennedy (JFK's and RFK's older brother) was killed while piloting one of these planes when it prematurely detonated. Joe was considered the high achiever of the family, and his father (also named Joe) intended his son to pursue a political career after the war. It was only after Joe's death than Joe Senior put his effort, influence, and fortune behind John instead.

    3. Re:It was done in WW2 by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.

      It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.

      The Germans had remote controlled weapons in WW2, the 'Mistel' being the most famous. It was intended mainly as an anti-ship weapon to be used against Allied shipping mainly in the English Channel and North Sea.

      The Mistel weapons that actually saw deployment and use consisted of either the Focke-Wulf FW-190 A-8 or F-8 model or Bf-109 F-4 model single-engine fighter (stripped of weapons and loaded with control equipment) attached by explosive bolts atop a twin-engine Junkers Ju-88 A-4 or G-1 model bomber modified for control-by-wire and loaded with a specially-designed, shaped-charge warhead weighing close to two tons.

      Control inputs to the released Ju-88 by the pilot in the fighter aircraft were transmitted by a set of very thin and long wires. The weapon proved not to be very effective as accuracy was an issue. The pilot must simultaneously fly his own aircraft (usually under heavy AAA fire) and guide the Ju-88 visually from his aircraft while staying within the range the control wires allow, which would be an extremely difficult task even for a seasoned pilot who is not under fire.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Germans also used the 'Goliath' wire-controlled mobile mine on a set of small tracks in both electric and gasoline-powered versions.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:It was done in WW2 by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.

      It looks more like the sort of inane nonsense daesh like to boast about: "Look how incredibly impressive and deadly we are, also, it's cool to fly a killer drone".

    5. Re:It was done in WW2 by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      And if we limit ourselves to remote control, don't forget the Fritz X or Hs 239 anti-ship guided bombs, or the Hs 117 joystick operated radio controlled SAM/AAM on the german side

      Or the us Azon anti-shipping guided bomb, which was developed after the Fritz X and Hs 239

    6. Re:It was done in WW2 by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.

      It looks more like the sort of inane nonsense daesh like to boast about: "Look how incredibly impressive and deadly we are, also, it's cool to fly a killer drone".

      Is it? A few well placed drones rigged with a half a block of C4 and some nails flown into the enemies machine gun positions just before an attack sounds to me like a good way to ensure the success of a subsequent infantry attack. Welcome to the infantry warfare of the future where your chances of survival diminish rapidly without some form of automated air defence to take out enemy drone swarms.

    7. Re:It was done in WW2 by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.

      It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.

      The Germans had remote controlled weapons in WW2, the 'Mistel' being the most famous. It was intended mainly as an anti-ship weapon to be used against Allied shipping mainly in the English Channel and North Sea.

      The Mistel weapons that actually saw deployment and use consisted of either the Focke-Wulf FW-190 A-8 or F-8 model or Bf-109 F-4 model single-engine fighter (stripped of weapons and loaded with control equipment) attached by explosive bolts atop a twin-engine Junkers Ju-88 A-4 or G-1 model bomber modified for control-by-wire and loaded with a specially-designed, shaped-charge warhead weighing close to two tons.

      Control inputs to the released Ju-88 by the pilot in the fighter aircraft were transmitted by a set of very thin and long wires. The weapon proved not to be very effective as accuracy was an issue. The pilot must simultaneously fly his own aircraft (usually under heavy AAA fire) and guide the Ju-88 visually from his aircraft while staying within the range the control wires allow, which would be an extremely difficult task even for a seasoned pilot who is not under fire.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Germans also used the 'Goliath' wire-controlled mobile mine on a set of small tracks in both electric and gasoline-powered versions.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.

      Strat

      The Nazi Germans also had glide bombs:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Some of the Henschel bombs hand TV guidance and there was a B&V model under development that was radar homing.

      The Allies had Glide bombs too most prominent being the American 'Aeronca' GB series and the Azon:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      However, the fun really started during WWI when the allies developed a primitive cruise missile and the Germans developed a wire guided gliding torpedo dropped from Zeppelin air ships and heavy bomber aircraft:

      http://warnepieces.blogspot.co...
      http://gizmodo.com/this-flying...

      The cruise missile was a bit of a failure but the glide torpedo was tested and might have become a successful operational weapon.

    8. Re:It was done in WW2 by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that they don't have drone "swarms", they have isolated drones with very limited payload capacity. Daesh opens up battles with VBIEDs, where they can deliver tonnes of explosives into enemy troop formations, not a kilogram or two. Trucks are a lot more abundant in Syria than drones as well.

      That said, I think it's easy to underestimate people because they're "jihadis". On the western side, JaF (islamist coalition, both anti-Assad and anti-Daesh) members not only use drones but have also been experimenting with remote controlled robotic gun platforms. For example, here's the Sham R3. Despite the consumer-hardware aspects (note the playstation controller to operate it), it seems surprisingly well made - multiaxis, very smooth action, good rotation rate but still accurate positioning, able to popup and retract for cover, etc. It's unlikely that things like that will somehow turn the war for them, but they are legitimate weapons development programs.

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    9. Re:It was done in WW2 by operagost · · Score: 1

      I really wish Joe Sr. had encouraged Ted to become an accountant instead.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:It was done in WW2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Germans had the V1 and V2. They would qualify as drones.

    11. Re:It was done in WW2 by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Geez, it's like the whole family is cursed. Then the two younger sons went into politics instead and both got assassinated....How many other Kennedys are there? :-/

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:It was done in WW2 by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The V-1, sure. I think calling a rocket a drone is stretching the definition past the breaking point.

      Although the V-1 wasn't remote-controllable or anything. They had a preprogrammed flight plan, where they pointed it in the right direction and a distance counter just decremented until it reached the target, and the engine cut out.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re: It was done in WW2 by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Like the Bushes, there's an endless supply.

    14. Re: It was done in WW2 by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Good grief, Robert had ELEVEN children: 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1968.

      Catholic families, man.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    15. Re:It was done in WW2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daesh opens up battles with VBIEDs,

      Visual Basic IEDs? Seems right. VB is really good at blowing up applications.

    16. Re:It was done in WW2 by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Well it is a HUGE family as well. But yeah, they had a lot of problems. Ted Kennedy was almost killed in a plane crash in the 60s. He barely recovered from a broken back, punctured lung, broken ribs, and internal bleeding. If he'd succumbed to his injuries, John, Bobby, and Ted would have all dies in a five-year span. This page has a cute list of unnatural Kennedy deaths.

  26. I knew a girl named Isis... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    and I'm pretty sure that she never did all of the things that the media is saying she did.

    1. Re:I knew a girl named Isis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was she fertile?

  27. next ar to air drones by plopez · · Score: 1

    COTS drones, perhaps modified, to take on attack drones or helicopters. Basically a poor man's guided missile.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:next ar to air drones by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I dunno man. Helicopters/attack drones have immense aircraft performance, driven by gas turbine engines. Battery powered drones don't have anywhere close to the power/weight and they also are always about to run out of battery. Maybe a hovering helicopter could be hit but attack drones orbit at 10,000+ feet and you're not going to hit a moving helicopter.

      Also, 2 lbs worth of warhead is marginal for destroying an attack helicopter. You could do it maybe but only if the detonation were in exactly the right spot and it was a shaped charge.

    2. Re:next ar to air drones by plopez · · Score: 1

      And then again they are cheap and becoming more capable each day. So what if you need 50 of them to take down a copter? Just get one of them to explode near an engine intake and it could cause some serious problems. Swarming could work. Hack them to latch onto the closest large target, get them into range, and them cut them loose to attack.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  28. Not enough payload to be effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story according to the BBC is that it was a booby trapped drone, that two Kurdish solders took it into their car and drove it to their base with the C4 and wires and timer still attached. I have to wonder if Kurds use-to dealing with IEDs would in fact do that, and if this isn't a sexed up version of a more plausible recent incident:

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/three-turkish-soldiers-wounded-in-isil-drone-attack-in-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=104339&NewsCatID=352

    "Three Turkish soldiers were slightly wounded in a drone attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) jihadist group on Sept. 27, on the 35th day of Euphrates Shield operation in Syria. Military sources said ISIL militants detonated a bomb-laden mini drone in the Wukuf region targeting Turkish soldiers. Three were slightly wounded in the attack and transferred to the border province of Kilis for treatment."

  29. Math, medicine and science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology ...

    Except in the fields of math, medicine and science ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Note that numerous fundamentalists (and terrorists too) are fully educated and qualified scientists and engineers. Not all of them have read one and only one book. Don't confuse the leadership class and the cannon fodder class.

    1. Re:Math, medicine and science by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... but the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology ...

      Except in the fields of math, medicine and science ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Yeah, that was before they went all theocratic. It's been a sandy shitstorm ever since.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Math, medicine and science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in the fields of math, medicine and science

      Yeah, but that was 600+ years ago. As the saying goes, "What have you done for me lately"?

      Note that numerous fundamentalists (and terrorists too) are fully educated and qualified scientists and engineers.

      It doesn't take an engineering degree to wire a drone with explosives and their idea of educated is a degree in Islamic studies. These terrorists are barbarians and the rest of us would be better off without them. They contribute nothing to the progress of humanity. On the contrary they hold all of us back by forcing us to deal with their childish and immature behavior. Killing these people would be a great service to the remainder of the species.

      Not all of them have read one and only one book.

      And yet they seem to have learned nothing from their "studies" other than bomb making and religious nonsense.

      Don't confuse the leadership class and the cannon fodder class.

      Between the Americans and the Russians, the leadership class of ISIS has been decimated. With the notable exception of the self proclaimed "caliph" Al-Baghdadi, they're mostly all dead now. The Russians and their Syrian allies have demonstrated the correct response to these terrorists. You don't negotiate with them, you kill them. First, one negotiates with equals, not with terrorists. Second, these terrorists have no centralized command to effectively compel obedience from their fighters under arms, so they cannot agree to or enforce a peace treaty. That leaves only one solution: extermination. Only after every terrorist who wants to continue fighting is dead can we move to the next stage. After the remainder has been disarmed and rounded up, they should be put into prison work camps and rehabilitated through forced hard labor for a term of not less than 10 years. Put them to work cleaning up rubble, repairing roads, resowing crops and rebuilding all of the infrastructure destroyed during the war. Of course, the leaders, if captured alive, should be hung like common criminals, cremated and their ashes scattered at sea. Death does not deter terrorists, but 10+ years of penal slavery in hard labor just might make an impression on their would-be successors.

    3. Re:Math, medicine and science by Archtech · · Score: 1

      And yet they seem to have learned nothing from their "studies" other than bomb making and religious nonsense.

      I think you will find that it was not Muslims who first started bomb-making. (Well, the Chinese probably began it, but they mostly used their pyrotechnics for celebration). It was European nations and the USA that first mass-produced high explosives for the express purpose of killing as many people as possible. Indeed, they actually went so far as to define civilisation as the possession and use of guns, bombs and warships.

      What goes around, comes around.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    4. Re:Math, medicine and science by Archtech · · Score: 1

      With the notable exception of the self proclaimed "caliph" Al-Baghdadi, they're mostly all dead now.

      Yeah, we've been hearing that for a good thirty years now - about various terrorist groups. How do you explain that, as the years go back, there are more terrorists, more terrorist groups, and more terrorist victims?

      "For months we have been making triumphant retreats before a demoralised enemy who is advancing in utter disorder". - "Wasp", Eric Frank Russell

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  30. Not going to be very effective by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    We have read about drones being taken out by shotguns but they have a lot less spread than you think, and the more the spread the quicker they lose effect.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not going to be very effective by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

      We have read about drones being taken out by shotguns but they have a lot less spread than you think, and the more the spread the quicker they lose effect.

      I'm quite familiar with the spread from skeet shooting. The fast part too, but not the changing course part. However actual hunters seem to manage that at thirty-something yards, and its not like the military is lacking in guys who have shot a large bird or two.

      FWIW, during WW2 the gunners for the bomber crews started their training by shooting skeet. However in round two of training they shot skeet while standing in the beds of moving trucks, shooting at a moving target while in motion themselves.

      I would not be surprised if designing the right load is more of a problem than training a sufficient number of soldiers.

    2. Re: Not going to be very effective by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      30 yards is about the range of a hand grenade explosion, that is simply not enough.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re: Not going to be very effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 yards is about the range of a hand grenade explosion, that is simply not enough.

      Make an explosive device plus small nails (poison coated preferably) which can be carried by a drone and you have a very cheap flexible way of delivering the payload. Even if you are looking at a 10m (11yd) kill/maim radius that is enough if you target an area where many people are gathered. You stated 30yd (27m) which would be absolutely devastating in certain places.

      The whole idea of small explosive devices such as mines and gerenades are not to kill but to maim and this has a greater physiological impact than just killing a person.

    4. Re: Not going to be very effective by perpenso · · Score: 1

      30 yards is about the range of a hand grenade explosion, that is simply not enough.

      US frag grenades have a lethal range of 5 meters and a wounding range of 15 meters.

    5. Re: Not going to be very effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am willing to wager that you haven't even used a shotgun in real life. I am willing to wager that you've never taken a course in physics. Why, pray tell, are you even commenting? Learn about shotguns, learn about loads and chokes, and take a few years to learn some basic physics in your spare time. Then comment.

    6. Re: Not going to be very effective by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Because they are offensive grenades, so they can't have a lethal range that overlaps with the throwing range. Defensive grenades have far higher ranges because they are supposed to be thrown from behind a cover.

      This is the most widespread defensive grenade:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      25 meters lethal range.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Not going to be very effective by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      The attackers could send several drones from different angles, and program in a series of flight waypoints that take them between structures in the target area as cover so they can't be engaged until it's too late.

      The attackers could hide the drones on rooftops or other unattended places in an urban area before the attack. Maybe inside a disguised container with a solar panel on it or something. (the solar panel would keep the drone's battery and a cell phone used for communication charged)

      Sort of darkly ironic is that while high end consumer drones can basically do this (you'd need a high end one with LIDAR so it doesn't collide with walls on the way to the target - not sure if any models you can buy have LIDAR, but it's totally doable if you use a solid state sensor), this kind of attack pattern is what a military using cruise missiles would do against a hardened target.

      Maybe there will have to be automated anti-drone defenses. Some kind of net round that won't be lethal if it misses the drone and hits a person. Or maybe important figures will have to spend all their time in hardened buildings and armored vehicles for fear of getting droned.

    8. Re: Not going to be very effective by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1
      It's odd; the initial description says a lethality radius of 25 meters, but then later on it says:

      The grenade can inflict injuries (e.g. penetrating eye wounds) out to 15 metres (49 ft) from the site of detonation. Victims caught within 3 metres (10 ft) of the detonation site are almost certain to be killed or severely wounded.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    9. Re:Not going to be very effective by perpenso · · Score: 1

      The attackers could send several drones from different angles ...

      Which is sort of what happens on a skeet range, different launch points, different directions of travel, etc. :-)

      ... and program in a series of flight waypoints that take them between structures in the target area ...

      Ah, choke points, put up a cheap bird net. The sort used to protect fruit trees. :-)

    10. Re:Not going to be very effective by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'd be so blithely confident if it were you facing exploding drone attacks. Would you feel better about being shot at with live ammo if you were wearing a level IV vest + helmet and thus have a good chance of not dying? It only takes one bullet to find a hole in your defense and you die. Defense inherently is also harder to do the offense because the attacker can choose the time and place to attack. Pick a spot where the nets are decayed or not installed. Use an overwhelming number of drones. That kind of thing.

    11. Re: Not going to be very effective by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Which might be why the parent mentioned the need for longer-barrelled shotguns...

    12. Re:Not going to be very effective by perpenso · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the creativity of corporals and sergeants to improvise some countermeasures. Not to mention the stuff you are describing is far closer to James Bond movies than reality. If you are going the movie technology route then why not give the troops small phalanx like systems mounted on humvees?

      If you read the NYT article you will find the US military has already been addressing the issue but has not equipped the Iraqis and Kurds. Also now that they are aware the Iraqis are shooting down drones with small arms. The drones being used are consumer/hobbyist devices.

      Also note that the ability to disrupt/degrade civilian GPS has been a feature since day 1.

    13. Re: Not going to be very effective by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      From the quoted Wikipedia page:

      The grenade can inflict injuries (e.g. penetrating eye wounds) out to 15 metres (49 ft) from the site of detonation. Victims caught within 3 metres (10 ft) of the detonation site are almost certain to be killed or severely wounded."

  31. More Anaheim than Aleppo by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Shotgun.

    Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you. You certainly don't understand much about the correlation between range and shot spread anyway....

    Afraid of disturbing the peace in Aleppo?

    You aren't really understanding where most of the upcoming attacks will take place.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by quenda · · Score: 1

      Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you.

      Have you ever flown a drone? They don't just home in on a hidden target like in the movies. And if the target is in the open, you are much better off with the RPG.

    2. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Shotgun.

      Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you. You certainly don't understand much about the correlation between range and shot spread anyway....

      Hunters routinely knock large birds (duck, geese) out of the sky at thirty-something yards with shotguns.

    3. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you.

      Have you ever flown a drone? They don't just home in on a hidden target like in the movies. And if the target is in the open, you are much better off with the RPG.

      If the drone is sort of an aerial claymore mine then precise targeting is not quite required.

    4. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medium and large birds, even when spooked, tend to fly in relatively straight lines.

    5. Re: More Anaheim than Aleppo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've played Doom...

    6. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Medium and large birds, even when spooked, tend to fly in relatively straight lines.

      Operators jinking their drone around get disoriented using the camera and can lose their target. When wire guided tow missiles first appeared on the battlefield tank gunners figured out they didn't have to hit the tow operator, they just had to make him duck or flinch to induce a miss. Similar sort of idea, make the operator fly evasively and they are likely to miss.

    7. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      The high end models have autopilots, cameras, and laser/ultrasonic sensors to avoid collisions. So it's within the state of the art to build a custom drone that uses off the shelf face recognition to pursue a specific person.

      Well, ish. Yeah I know, in reality the person would turn away from the drone and it would lose lock, from a distance the camera wouldn't have enough resolution, reflections off window glass or rain would mess it up, etc etc etc. I'm trying to say that a movie like seeking quadcopter with a bomb isn't far off. And today you could make one that homes on GPS coordinates, giving it an accuracy that would sometimes be pinpoint, able to hit a specific window in a building or a specific spot on the ground.

      And sometimes it would be terrible, since GPS is spotty and depends on a number of factors.

    8. Re:More Anaheim than Aleppo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, this is what you launch at those with heavy cover.

  32. I thought they were using Samsung phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they were using captured Samsung phones and mounting them on RPG's and building roadside bombs out of the ExPlOdInG PhOnEs. Rumor has it Kim Jong Un wants to mount Samsung phones on their long range rockets. BOOM! Exploding like only a Samsung phone can explode!

  33. Flying bird drones by yorgasor · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for someone to make flying bird drones and then launch them against the whitehouse. If you make a flock of them, they could do some serious damage, or take out the helilcopter. I don't see a good way we could defend against such an attack.

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
  34. It was done in 415 BC by dcollins · · Score: 2

    Fire ships were used in the Athenian Sicilian Expedition, and otherwise through ancient times and the age of sail:

    The rest [of the Athenian force] the enemy tried to burn by means of an old merchantman which they filled with faggots and pine-wood, set on fire and let drift down the wind which blew full on the Athenians. The Athenians, however, alarmed for their ships, contrived means for stopping it and putting it out, and checking the flames and the nearer approach of the merchantman, thus escaped the danger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ship

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  35. Wow... by maz2331 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, they figured out how to tape a grenade to a quadracopter?

    1. Re:Wow... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Not only that but how to pull the pin once over the target.

      You make it sound trivial but the implications are bigger than the technology employed. I was in the US Army and the tactics taught in basic military training did not include looking for quadcopters with a grenade attached. This is something new that, according to the article at least, the smart people that are supposed to see things like this coming did not foresee. What is worse is that there is no easy fix.

      I recall a story from WWII of the US Army seeing big losses of soldiers from drowning. Back then the US Army and US Navy had much greater training and logistic separation than they do now. The Army didn't think that soldiers, people trained to fight on land, would be put in a position where they'd have to worry about drowning. It just was not thought of until ships full of soldiers being carried over the ocean to the battlefield were attacked. Basic water survival has been a part of basic training since.

      Another more recent example. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were getting blown up by booby traps. This is stupid simple technology of putting a wire across a doorway with one end attached to the pin of a grenade. A big problem since there was no training on this. Several different means were used to address this with differing levels of success and time involved to discover the wires. What became the most favored means of detection was to use those cans of "silly string" to spray a brightly colored string onto the wires but not apply enough pressure to pull the pin on the grenade. What was an improvised method became standard equipment and training. I imagine the $5 can of silly string that they used in the beginning has become a $500 can that can withstand temperatures of -50C to 70C, pressures from 0 to 15 atmospheres, and radiation blast from a tactical nuke but that's another story.

      Those are a couple examples on how to address known issues in battle with training and simple equipment. What the problem is now is that the powers that be need to find a way to counteract this new development, and do so quickly, or people die. This is not as simple as issuing cans of silly string and training the soldiers how to use it.

      I'm sure some SJW will claim that this is all our fault for invading their land and how western nations should just leave them alone and then they will leave us alone. My first instinct is to punch such people in the face but since this is the internet, and I try to keep myself from being arrested for battery, I'll point out that western civilization has been battling these savages for centuries. The words "to the shores of Tripoli" in the USMC song refers to a battle with an Islamic state in 1803. They declared war on the USA since the USA existed.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Wow... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure practically every soldier has the skills and equipment to deal with this particular problem. Maybe they might have to figure it out on the fly but it would only take a couple before soldiers start shooting down any small drones they see hovering around a war zone and not picking them up to take back to base, just like anything else that is potentially booby trapped which is basically anything.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Wow... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I've never seen battle but I know people that have. What is not typical battle gear is a shotgun and trying to shoot down a small drone with a M-4 or M-16 rifle would seem more that just difficult. Not to mention trying to shoot down a drone with a rifle that has an effective range of over a mile does seem like something that might not be safe, even in a war zone, to attempt.

      A typical infantry squad in an urban environment will have one of perhaps four soldiers with what they call a "master key". A master key, in this instance, is a short barreled Remington Model 870 shotgun loaded with door breaching rounds. This might serve to down a small drone loaded with explosives, especially if loaded with more appropriate ammunition but there is still a matter of training. The M870 is not a complex piece of equipment but soldiers should have at least some familiarity with it before being expected to shoot down drones with it. Some marksmanship training would certainly be helpful, aiming a rifle is different than pointing a shotgun. Shooting down a drone is certainly very different than taking a door off its hinges.

      Also, who says shooting them down is the best idea? That certainly seems like a logical solution but maybe throwing a baseball at it would work better. Or tossing a net at it. Maybe an EMP weapon? The powers that be don't know what does and does not work yet. Also, you point out that the drone once grounded is still a threat. I agree it is a threat but this is different than a booby trap triggered by a string, the soldiers need to be trained on this.

      The soldiers in the US Army are the best trained in the world and I expect, as apparently you do, to figure things out quickly. However, this is a new problem and "figuring it out on the fly" as you point out can get soldiers killed. A lot of lives can be saved with even a few minutes of training so soldiers don't repeat mistakes others did while "figuring it out on the fly".

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How HARD is it to shoot down a HIGH SPEED Drone? https://youtu.be/WP33crds1tI

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

      I'm glad you've suppressed your violent caveman instincts just slightly better than middle eastern terrorists do sometimes. You must be so proud of yourself.

      Anyway:

      something new that, according to the article at least, the smart people that are supposed to see things like this coming did not foresee.

      Uhh.... no. There's been talk of this for decades.

    6. Re:Wow... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Uhh.... no. There's been talk of this for decades.

      Perhaps but let's think about this. Radio controlled aircraft have been used certainly since WWII. Putting in cameras and TV transmitters for a first person view for piloting was experimented with then, perhaps even used successfully. These were converted light bombers where the controls had to be operated by a trained pilot. One could argue that the pilots would have to be exceptionally skilled since they'd be flying from a different aircraft that was trailing and flying from what could be seen through the cameras (likely B&W and very low resolution given the technology of the 1940s), and maybe from what they could see from the windows of the trailing aircraft. This meant the destruction of a very valuable airframe, and valuable electronics, and would likely only be attempted out of desperation.

      Radio controlled airplanes have existed for decades for certain. I vaguely recall a 1980s TV show where the plot of one episode focused on the use of a very unique RC plane loaded with explosives to down an airliner. The plane was flown by line of sight, since no camera and transmitter would fit. RC planes were something of a fad at the time, making the episode appealing to audiences, but even then the planes would have been quite expensive and difficult to control, and therefore be not much better than chucking a grenade unless, as with the WWII experiments, flown as very expensive radio guided missiles into high value targets. This would be true up into the 1990s at least, making the claim of "decades" dubious.

      This is the use of inexpensive remote controlled aircraft, capable of hovering over a target, with video resolution sufficient to identify a possible target from hundreds of feet in the air, a radio range far enough that it exceeds the ability of someone to just chuck a grenade, with sufficient on board electronics that a user with minimal training can operate with sufficient control to get within feet of the target in time short enough that the target cannot react, having payload sufficient to carry a deadly explosive and remote detonator, and all of this cheap enough to use against a common soldier, not only a VIP.

      I'm pretty sure this technology is a very recent development. People may have been speculating about this for decades but not to sufficient detail to know enough to develop counter measures. People have been talking about a lot of things for a long time but never knowing exactly when the technology would arrive or with enough detail to do anything about it. People have discussed biological and chemical attacks for a long time too but until one knows exactly what kind of chemicals or biological elements one can expect the counter measures can be only very generic and therefore not especially effective.

      We might have been able to foresee what a future remote controlled flying grenade might be capable of, but without knowing specifics like the range of the device, the frequencies used, the coding system for the up and down links, etc. the countermeasures would only be very generic. It seems the specifics surprised a lot of people.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soldiers in the US Army are the best trained in the world

      This is certainly not the case, just a gut feeling but I'd say probably the best trained line troops would be La Légion

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

      Not to mention trying to shoot down a drone with a rifle that has an effective range of over a mile does seem like something that might not be safe, even in a war zone, to attempt.

      It's a warzone bro. You only have to be concerned about your own forces. Anyone else downrange has to take their chances. And sometimes if the shit hits the fan then your own forces have to take their chances too.

  36. Top Geek Myths by dcollins · · Score: 1

    (1) Colonization/living on other planets
    (2) Uploading brains from bodies to computers
    (3) War with robots implying no human deaths
    (4) Technology giving the masses a life of leisure

    Re: #3 -- People don't submit to perceived tyranny because their material stuff got destroyed; rather, the opposite.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  37. probably a LiPo battery explosion by Max_W · · Score: 1

    The drone was shot at, the LiPo battery was damaged, and it exploded later. The LiPo batteries shall no be damaged, and if it still happened the LiPo should be disposed of correctly.

    1. Re:probably a LiPo battery explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two people died and two were injured, that is a bit excessive for a lithium fire...

    2. Re:probably a LiPo battery explosion by Max_W · · Score: 1

      If it is a big battery say 6S 10000 mAh and if they started to poor water on it after an ignition, it could happen. I saw cars and buildings ablaze because of a LiPo.

      The sand or a special fire extinguisher is to be used, but even experienced RC pilots make this error.

  38. The Samsung conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Bet you anything that these drones are made from recycled Note 7s.

  39. I have always wondered... by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...why this wasn't more widely used, specially by the US. It's the logical development from the "big drone bomb". A swarm of small drones with cameras and explosives locate the enemy, approach it, stick to it, and explode. You don't need a big charge for that, as you are sticking to the enemy. The enemy can blow up a couple of the drones, but you have tens in each operation. No civilian casualties, no risk to your own troops. You force the enemy to get out of sight where it cannot maneuver. You make thousands of the things and they go always ahead of the troops, to minimize risk. It seems such a no-brainer that the only thing I can think of, is that the developed armies are waiting to have good counter-measures for them before deploying it.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:I have always wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this gives me the willies when I watch youtube videos about aerial drone swarms. I can imagine an antipersonnel drone the size of a fist delivered in sufficient quantities to prevent you from knocking them all out before they get you. Not sure what a good defense against that would be. Imagine several hundred small drones swarming you, armed with poison barbs (with say, snake venom), small explosives, or kinetic weapons. Sort of like being attacked by killer bees. So, maybe bomb disposal type body armor might protect you, but you won't get much done wearing suits like that.

    2. Re:I have always wondered... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      That would work well if the enemy was running around in an open field where you can see them. Not so much when they're hiding in buildings, jungle, caves, etc.

    3. Re:I have always wondered... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      The tech to do this at scale is just a few years old. The key piece that was missing is you need cheap sensors and cheap processors able to accurately recognize people. Probably an IR sensor, a camera, and machine vision on FPGAs/custom chips running neural nets.

      That's 2015 technology. That is, before 2015, it existed but sucked ass and was too expensive.

      And so maybe in 2025 the military procurement process will have the first acceptable prototypes. But yeah it's a great idea, I'm imagining some kind of containerized weapon. You essentially fire it by connecting a control device to a port on the side. You specify the GPS coordinates of the target area. You expect it to just kill everyone in the target area, so you need a blue force tracking system to make sure no friendly troops are there.

      Realistically I can't think of a reliable means to tell the difference between friendly troops, enemy troops, and civilians - well ok I think you could maybe train the recognition to PREFER enemy troops but it would still sometimes screw up so the target area would have to be clear of friendly troops.

      Anyways, the containerized weapon makes a terrible racket as all the drones insides start up (would sound like bees) and then they all escape through an opening in the top.

    4. Re:I have always wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give our guys microchips so the drones go after anything but us. Civilian casualties are unfortunate... but the shock and awe aspect of knowing there will be no survivors is a great incentive for those civilians to overthrow their dictators.

    5. Re:I have always wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do. There are some anti-tank systems that drop a large motherbomb off the back of the plane. That scatters out bomblets with parachutes (to increase their flight time) and spin round actively scanning the ground for tanks. Once a vehicle is located it ignites the rocket propelled missile and blasts the tanks.

    6. Re:I have always wondered... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I can also imagine placing the drones precisely, and detonating their payload in a precisely time succession to create a pressure wave that is either directed or of a magnitude that is greater than what a single bomb of the same mass could produce.

      It's technology like this that could change how battles are fought. Much like how firearms ended the days of the mounted knight and high walled castles. Or how warplanes ended the days of the big gun battleships. How effective would a M1 Abrams tank be if a small cheap drone can fly up to it and blow off a track?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:I have always wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but... think of the military contractors? How can they charge billions of dollars for that?

  40. They adapt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to what you merkins teach them.

  41. are they dropping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    samsung note s7's then?

    1. Re:are they dropping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jees man, how many people have made that joke now? Go on, throw in a Harambe reference for true originality.

  42. Rigged with explosions? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    They should rig it with explosives instead, I bet they would have a much better outcome.

  43. Blowback's a bitch - coming to the USA soon by Archtech · · Score: 1

    "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap". - Galatians 6:7

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  44. Misleading by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure "booby trapping a drone so it blows up if captured" is precisely the same as "attacking" someone with said drone?

    --
    -Styopa
  45. That time ended, at the same time as the Dark Ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As for the current Saudi Arabia, they tolerate knowledge of some things but are still creationists, DAESH is more extreme than them, they might change after taking power but it would be a change. Even if they water themselves down they can't tolerate knowledge that contradicts their holy book so at some point that would hit a roadblock, and that is likely to be before they get to quantum physics which is required to make modern computer chips and they might miss those! The communists are different, totalitarianism dose not require anti-technology sentiment, the two are separate. In the end it was the Arabic speaking world's predecessors decent into anti-technology ant-knowledge ideologies that has lead to the current situations. What would it would have been like if their enlightened era had lasted even a few more years, enough to get more of the books and the scholars into Europe as it went through its Enlightenment at least, or even hadn't happened?

  46. Re: This would solve the drone trespassing questio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, arm everyone over the age of 5 with a shotgun, and tell them if they see anything in the sky, to shoot at it as many times as they can and then duck and cover.

    Followed by the accidental shooting death of 1 million americans when the 7 year olds are playing with their gun.

  47. People seem to be lagging behind the facts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ONLY the US were fighting ISIS and not ASSISTING them.

    ISIS is a proxy force for regime change.

    Hillary used it in Libya to overthrow their government - where 'coallition' forces directly supported them, and it is now operating in Syria after the 'rebellion' fomented by the US failed, and after framing Syria for chemical weapons failed. It's plan C.

  48. Claymores are directional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Claymores (at least in real life) ARE directional and their frag pattern requires aiming to work. The frags are also usually metal, and thus quite heavy.

    My guess is the drones are only carrying HE which, density wise, is much lighter but requires the drone to be much closer to the target to have effect. "Closer" requires aim (or flight control in this case), particularly if you're hitting something behind cover. I'm with shotgun guy--even damaging a quadcopter will make it neigh impossible for it to make it close enough to do significant damage and those things are full of lightweight light duty moving parts.

    A winged drone may take a little more damage, but if it's foam it'll still break with birdshot.

    US Forces have a semiauto shotgun attachment (M26) that can be fitted to an M4 in place of the M203. It was commonly used for firing breaching rounds at doors in Iraq. The birdshot wouldn't be standard issue, but is available in plenty on the commercial market in the US.

  49. Grand Theft Auto by phorm · · Score: 1

    One of the older GTA games also did this, and I believe it involved toy helicopters (aka "drones" by today's media)

  50. Re:This would solve the drone trespassing question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe we already have the answer.

    I now have a right to shoot down a drone on my property, simply because it could be a domestic terrorist attack.

    QED

  51. oh, *fighters* by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    I read "fighters" as "combat aircraft" so it took me until most of the way through the summary to realize that they weren't downing F-16s with consumer-grade drones. That would've been much more impressive.

    How about "combatants" instead of "fighters", guys.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  52. No worries. by sootman · · Score: 1

    According to some snail mail I got today, "Donald Trump will defeat ISIS once and for all."

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  53. You Laugh Now, Just Wait... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    ...Until they figure out how to attach a set of rotors to a Galaxy Note 7!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  54. Re:It was done in WW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average consumer hardware is most likely not tempest hardened, and would be susceptible to any number of frequency jamming technologies targeted at the consumer frequency bands that the military has access to. Ideally, if the explosives are triggered by signal, find out what the signal is, and keep broadcasting it so that they explode early, preferably as soon as the device is enabled.