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.
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
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!
Just wait and see what they do with self-driving trucks.
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.
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.
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/...
Recall also that every month guns kill nearly as many people as 9/11 did.
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.
... 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.'"
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.'"
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
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?
...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.
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
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.
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.