'DroneGun' Can Take Down Aircraft From Over 1.2 Miles Away (thenextweb.com)

The more drones being sold around the world increases the likelihood of them being used as part of a criminal act. For example, ISIS has been using drones in Iraq to carry and drop explosives. In an effort to protect consumers, an Australian and U.S. company called DroneShield has announced a product called the DroneGun. The DroneGun "allows for a controlled management of drone payload, such as explosives, with no damage to common drone models or the surrounding environment," the maker says on its website, "due to the drones generally responding via a vertical controlled landing on the spot, or returning back to the starting point (assisting to track the operator)." The Next Web reports: DroneGun, a handheld anti-drone device, has a range of 1.2 miles. It also looks like an unlockable item in a first-person shooter. The "gun" uses a jammer to disable electronic communication across the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz frequencies. Blocking these frequencies cuts off communication between the drone and pilot (or GPS) and forces it to land safely or return to its operator -- which assists in tracking the offending party. At 13 pounds, it's a bit cumbersome, but still capable of being operated by one person. It's also mostly a point-and-shoot device and doesn't require specialized training to use. DroneGun isn't approved for use in the United States -- thanks, FCC. If approved the device could provide a useful tool for taking down drones at airports, over crowded spaces, and in war zones.

Comments

Autopilot

[BitZtream]

Dude, I'm not flying the bomb to your house while holding the transmitter, I'm turning on the auto pilot, letting it sit there for an hour, then take off and bomb you while I'm 2 states away. Oh, and I'm doing this on software thats a couple years old (ArduPilot from a few years ago) so ...

This is useful for taking down your DJI phantom ... but as far as taking down a weaponized toy? Yea, no, you're going to need to hit inertial management and GPS based on what I can build for a hundred bucks. Give me 200 and I'll start doing optical guidance.

Re: Autopilot

[K. S. Kyosuke]

my beautiful nubile teen daughter - remember the guy in Tennessee, who claimed that

The juxtaposition of those first five words alone should win that guy some porn title award or something.

Re:Autopilot

[Oswald McWeany]

If it makes it more difficult and expensive to build a "weaponized drone", then it serves a purpose. Even if it doesn't stop all drones, it is useful. People often make the mistake of thinking if a single deterrent doesn't stop everything by itself it is useless. That isn't the case, you need layers of defense.

For stopping some teen flying his toy at an airport, this is absolutely a viable choice. Stopping Russia from attacking the white house? Maybe not.

Re:Autopilot

[drinkypoo]

FYI: You're on the "terrist" watch list now if you weren't already.

A ~$120 quad with a couple of added goodies (Either that or DIY: Neewer SK450 or F450, XXD 30A ESCs and 1000kV motors, cheapest-possible 4S 5AH battery, ~$18 Naze32 and $15 neo8m, $5 bluetooth to serial) can fly for over two miles at a total takeoff weight of 2 kg. It weighs 680g and the $30 battery weighs 650g. The total weight of a M67 grenade is only 400g and you should be able to pull the pin with an inexpensive winch constructed from a $8 eBay metal gear continuous drive servomotor which weighs 60g. Most of what you need comes with the servo since it comes with horns. Presumably you could improvise your own explosive, but I'm told it's not impossible to get one's hands on grenades.

Everything you need except the explosive can be simply purchased from eBay and/or HobbyKing. If you want to manage standby power you'll need a computer-controlled charger, those are readily available. So who exactly is this stuff supposed to be a secret from? You can google all of this up; I just did. I've been a loudmouth on the web about as long as there has bee one, so I think it's safe to say I'm already on watch lists. I don't have any problem passing an FBI background check though, or at least, I didn't last time I tried to work for a casino. The devil you know? Or maybe they just don't give a shit.

Re:Is it approved anywhere?

[Obfuscant]

Just like soldering guns have been illegal for decades.

Re:Also Kills WiFi

[guruevi]

Not just WiFi but pretty much most wireless crap you have around the house. How about your alarm system, central smoke/fire detectors, modern thermostats, pacemakers, Bluetooth.

It's not even innovative, it is well known that a jammer will cause a drone to stop responding. Putting a can antenna on it makes it somewhat directional. However a drone doesn't have to be remote controlled. You can easily program it to follow a path and this thing won't be effective at all.

Re:This is absurd

[LynnwoodRooster]

Many things that aren't FCC approved (like cell phone jammers) are legal for police and anti-terror use (like cell phone jammers - or this). It may be illegal for you and me - but those who need to use it to protect infrastructure can most assuredly get it. Same with modern automatic weapons, grenades, etc.

Stop the fucking clickbait Slashdot, seriously

[readingprofile]

Yes, drones are aircraft, but not all aircraft are drones. This story (and the summary) is specifically focused on jamming drone communications. The Slashdot title however uses the word aircraft instead of drone, which would initially lead something into thinking this was something that could be used to take down passenger aircraft.

Even if it can cause some radio interference to an airliner (not sure if it can or if it would even matter, just speculating), the very specific use of the word "Aircraft" rather than "Drones" in the title is not an accident. Slashdot, you're supposed to be better than that. I thought your new owners were going to be trying to improve its reputation. That, along with other crappy stories and a fixation on a lot of non-geek news as well, is kinda looking a lot like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Anyway...

[HBI]

I did some time in Iraq with an EOD group. They made big booms. I work around controlled dets all day, even now. Big booms also, though not as big as the ones the EOD guys made in abandoned dwellings. Anyway, i'd rather have the det be 40 yards away than right near me, thanks. Also, a drone can't carry all that much metal aloft, so the shrapnel possibilities are low. More worried about shrapnel than the actual explosive.

Re:Anyway...

[rtb61]

Easiest way to tackle 'a' drone in a combat situation is with another semi-automated drone. Rather than carrying weighty explosive, simply a somewhat armoured drone with steel blades, basically a flying lawnmower (said drone could also target people, flying buzz saw, quite nasty). Set if off in the general direction and let it use sonar for the final attack run, some times it will survive and sometimes it will not but the targeted drone will go down (lighter fabrication due to payload and required range). Many boomerang drones at once, far more problematic (boomerang because they come back for reuse if they do not strike a desired target and detonate).

Tackling 'a' boomerang drone in any more modern battle field will be totally unrealistic, as sending out say, 10 times as many as required to complete target destruction, to ensure some get through would be the norm, what the heck, you can bring back say 60% to 80% of them and automatically disarm them and send them out again, once they have been rearmed.

Being a combatant on a drone dominated battlefield means nothing but being a short life target, praying they run out of drones before you do, with the defending side having a great advantage in that regard ie defence structures housing tens of thousands of drones (relatively safe whilst they are locked up inside and indescribably dangerous when released all at once, why not, if you win, you can automatically recover all drones that failed to achieve their targets and were not destroyed).

They whole idea is to stop playing war by ensuring psychopaths no longer gain positions of governance or influence, rather than coming up with more and more stupid ways of killing each other.

Re:shotgun more effective

[CaptQuark]

Shooting down UAVs near your property makes about as much sense as shooting the tires of speeders in your neighborhood. Talk about overreacting!

Do you also grab the shotgun when you see a kite above your property? Kites can also carry cameras on stabilized platforms. So can balloons.

Also, if you fire a weapon within your city or county limits, you will be talking to the authorities anyway.

--

WiFi Killer

[Roger W Moore]

Birdshot at 40 yards should do the trick.

It would also have the advantage of not taking out every WiFi in 1.2 miles.