Slashdot Mirror
China's Police Will Shoot Illegal Drones With Radio-Jamming Rifles (mashable.com)
"Police in China are being equipped with new high-tech weaponry to help them fight back against illegal drone use," writes new submitter drunkdrone. Mashable reports:
A Chinese city's police department is arming itself with more than 20 drone-jamming rifles...which work by emitting radio signals that force the drones to land, purportedly without damaging them. The drone-killing rifles will be used during the upcoming 2017 Wuhan Marathon, to raise security. Wuhan police demonstrated the drone-killing rifles last week, where they shot down six drones, according to the Chutian Metropolitan Daily.
Each rifle costs $36,265, and has a range of 0.6 miles.
Each rifle costs $36,265, and has a range of 0.6 miles.
but you have to wait four weeks for shipment
he dead
Each rifle costs $36,265, and has a range of 0.6 miles.
Bold mine.
Here's how:
Incorporate software in the drones to keep them at 0.7miles and above, while still doing what they need to do.
How about that?
Regular rifles can permanently jam a radio signal to a drone too... If you hit it right... (in the receiver...)
portfolio
...which work by emitting radio signals that force the drones to land, purportedly without damaging them. The drone-killing rifles
This doesn't sound like what most people would consider "drone killing". But I guess that makes a better headline than drone disabling.
...would be cheaper, have a longer range, and require less direction. Apparently, eagles naturally hate drones and will seek them out and take them down. They're pretty effective too: https://www.youtube.com/result...
China's Police Will Shoot Illegal Drones With Radio-Jamming Rifles
Wouldn't it be cheaper to shoot the drones using radio-jamming rifles?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You can use them to jam radios and cameras in protester crowds too, to make sure those embarrassing videos don't reach the internet.
radio control always land safely and without damage.
where "safely" means "unable to transmit footage of potentially horrific things that make government look bad".
and "without damage" means "more evidence to gather to aid in rounding up the pilot".
Look at it this way: "safely" does not mean properly shielded so the police operator doesn't have a gigantically increased chance of getting brain cancer.
This should improve the odds that cheapo Chinese drones start to feature more robust IMU/gyro/etc. based fallbacks for dealing with excessive RF noise!
In all seriousness, jamming a drone obviously makes life harder, since it excludes all 'basically just an RC airplane' hardware; prevents the operator from getting footage or issuing new commands, and so on; but it's hardly some rule of the universe that 'just make a docile attempt at landing' is the inevitable response to hitting a nasty RF spike. A variety of options, from heuristics of various sophistication for backing out and trying to escape the jamming; to attempts to fly straight toward where the emissions are most intense and ruin the jammer's day; to just dead-reckoning via onboard sensors and a backup flight path, all exist.
And that doesn't include the drones that actually have some nontrivial machine vision capabilities, or sensors other than cameras that can be used for navigation, though such tend to be rather more expensive.
That might work in select locations; but CIWS isn't cheap(Phalanx is north of $5 million a pop; albeit probably more because of the support electronics than the gun alone); and ammunition isn't inexpensive and is a nontrivial danger to everyone in the area; and both factors are going to limit the number of places you can get away with deploying it.
The Chinese already have human overlords, they don't need robotic ones.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
But can the jamming rifles be used on boom-box cars? THAT would be nice...
the drones will be made in the usa and sold to china.
I'm interested in knowing what the rifles actually do.
If it's jamming the control frequency, then the drone may simply report loss of controller communication and automatically return to where it's home position was recorded.
OTOH, if it causes the drone to fall out of the sky, then the drone could cause other unforeseen problems.
Either way an RF emitting rifle is much more cost effective than a patriot missile.
Ah but a ciws with a couple of these baby's and some modified programming could be awesome
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
A continuation of that thought these jam radio could it block GPS too? They might be useful in real ciws systems as a second shootdown or at least turn off course.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
It's considered tacky to talk about 'blocking' GPS; but if you look for 'GPS signal generators' or 'GPS simulators', you can get hardware that doesn't merely interfere with GPS; but can produce a fairly convincing GPS fix for a time/location/etc. that you specify. Tricky and subtle to fool a suitably nice GPS system that is actively paranoid about the possibility; a couple of antennas on the ground just doesn't look quite like a satellite constellation; but can fool more naive GPS systems quite effectively.
It is suspected that this is the technique behind a few surveillance drones that were led off course and (mostly) soft-landed in hostile areas(I think the most recent case was a US drone that got a little too close to the Iranians). Really shoddy firmware might get fatally confused if you suddenly present it with some wild fantasy data; but if you start feeding accurate GPS signals, and gradually skew them, error can quickly and quietly accumulate much faster than a naive target might suggest.
I imagine that the power of blocking or spoofing GPS depends mostly on how many backup instruments you have; and how paranoid you are. GPS is preferred because it provides very well-behaved data from a chip that costs peanuts; but it's not as though everyone just stumbled around and got lost before it was available. A drone built right down to budget and weight might not have anything to fall back on; but compasses, terrain-following, inertial navigation, even celestial navigation if it isn't too sunny are all options.
More effective and cheaper!
Only within the limited effective altitude range of the shotgun. Effective horizontal range of a 12GA is around 200 yards maximum. Vertical (or near-vertical) range would be much less. A drone at 700 feet altitude should be safe from most regular shotguns, I would think. A large-bore goose gun could do better, but they still have limitations. Shotgun pellets lose velocity quickly when fired in the normal near-horizontal plane, fighting gravity on top of that...well...better hope the drone is trying for a relatively close-in video/photo-op.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
For just 80 times the cost, A US Ally Shot Down a $200 Drone With a $3 Million Patriot Missile, superior US military technology can shoot it down at up to 160 times the distance! Wikipedia: MIM-104 Patriot.
Superior Patriot technology let you protect against drones in a 80 524 times as large area at a cost effectiveness at 100:1 considering the low extra cost at 80x the price of this anti-drone rifle!
Firing shotguns into the air in cities - what could possibly go wrong?
The way to spot a gun nut is that they know fuckall about guns, even less about gun safety and accept that traitor Oliver North in the NRA as their leader.
Not every gun user is a gun nut. Maybe consider becoming one of those instead of the foaming at the mouth political types.
Posting history not strawman BlueStrat.
Not your first idiotic gun post, not even the twentieth.
I think I'd learned more about gun safety by the time I was seven than the shit you spout.
A drone built right down to budget and weight might not have anything to fall back on; but compasses, terrain-following, inertial navigation, even celestial navigation if it isn't too sunny are all options.
Inertial navigation should be enough. The problem then is processing time. A drone with an Arduino or even a stm32 is spending most of its time running the flight control code.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What if said drone navigates via an INS and gyros, and isn't controlled from the ground but via a pre-programmed flight plan? It sounds like this defense, while probably effective against your average DJI Phantom bought at Walmart, will do nothing to deter someone motivated enough to use a drone as a weapon. Hell, it probably won't even work against drones that don't rely on GPS and are controlled on something other than 2.4Ghz.
Not to insert check his posting history, world class loser.