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.
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.
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
Must be delicate work.
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.
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...
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.
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?"
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
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.
So they're doing what virtually any military is doing, but on the cheap?
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!
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.
Thanks for the scoop Nyt /. - more wall building should fix that I tell you what.
Get up!
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.
Just wait and see what they do with self-driving trucks.
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?
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/...
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/...
and I'm pretty sure that she never did all of the things that the media is saying she did.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
COTS drones, perhaps modified, to take on attack drones or helicopters. Basically a poor man's guided missile.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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
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
... 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.'"
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
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
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
So, they figured out how to tape a grenade to a quadracopter?
(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
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.
...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.
They should rig it with explosives instead, I bet they would have a much better outcome.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
One of the older GTA games also did this, and I believe it involved toy helicopters (aka "drones" by today's media)
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
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.
...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.