Slashdot Mirror
Amateur Drone Lands On British Air Carrier, Wired Reviews Anti-Drone Technology (bbc.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader mi quotes the BBC:
The Ministry of Defence is reviewing security after a tiny drone landed on the deck of Britain's biggest warship. The Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier was docked at Invergordon in the Highlands when an amateur photographer flew the drone close to the giant ship. When the aircraft sensed a high wind risk, it landed itself on the £3bn warship. The pilot told BBC Scotland: "I could have carried two kilos of Semtex and left it on the deck... I would say my mistake should open their eyes to a glaring gap in security."
Meanwhile, tastic007 shares Wired's footage of anti-drone products being tested (like net guns, air-to-air combat counter-drones, and drone net shotgun shells) -- part of the research presented at this year's DEFCON.
Meanwhile, tastic007 shares Wired's footage of anti-drone products being tested (like net guns, air-to-air combat counter-drones, and drone net shotgun shells) -- part of the research presented at this year's DEFCON.
a tiny drone (Phantom class) that can lift 2 kilos and fly an usable distance, and I'll buy it just to figure out what kind of new motor and battery tech they are using. Flying and landing where you shouldn't is bad I get it, but don't use obvious hyperbole to make it worse then it really is.
Even today, you can go retrofit a standard rocket firecracker from a local store with explosives and go shoot them at stuff. There isn't some all seeing security system that will stop you. 2kg of explosives from one drone isn't going to cause as much damage as people think to a warship. And I am sure if it was going to a sensitive location or a bunch were coming in, there would be soldiers shooting them out of the sky.
The space pen though is an urban legend. This doesn't invalidate your other point though.
Insects win by being small, fast, and numerous. Give the Chinese enough money and time...
If you're interested in the anti-drone products, Google "Game of Drones National Geographic." It's a pretty well made episode about a military competition to stop commercial drones. Its a cable-provider login, but worth it.
Chinese drones would need to get past the US's Drone Swarm first
>The pilot told BBC Scotland: "I could have carried two kilos of Semtex and left it on the deck... I would say my mistake should open their eyes to a glaring gap in security."
I suggest the authorities teach the pilot a lesson and arrest him on terrorism charges and illegal trespass
Partially, both the Soviets and NASA did use pencils initially since regular ink ones didn't work. However, once the space ink pen was produced they both also started using it.
Now since NASA got the pens first the legend was probably technically true for a short period.
Maybe NASA got the pen first, but they didn't develop it.
Insects win by being small, fast, and numerous. Give the Chinese enough money and time...
This is why I am always harping on about "toy technology". That's all it takes to unleash hell today. Forget Chucky, look out for the Air Hogs. Manhacks aren't even scary, you can defeat them with a crowbar. What are you going to do against a dozen exploding foam gliders?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What kind of weak, petty, miserable and hateful little shit are you, talking about people as insects?
The myth is that NASA spent millions developing the pens. Not true. They were developed privately, and NASA replaced mechanical pencils costing $130 each with pens costing <$3 each.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I've flown my scratch-build 400 class multirotor (they are not "drones", idiots!) in several hurricanes with 40+ MPH winds gusting to 70+ MPH and I had no major issues.
I think there is a Mr Steele video of him flying a tiny little acro quad on a mountain in winds that looked gusting to unbelievable speeds.
I guess the conclusion is DJI must suck.
Or N Korea, a drone, and 200g of sarin nerve agent. They already have camouflaged drones, so it wouldn't be surprising.
Enter the $1 per shot naval laser.
Coming soon to an Israeli occupied territory near you!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This topic of drones and their use for violent eds and how it's changing things just came up in a recent episode of Sam Harri's waking up podcast where he interviewed Gavin De Becker a security expert who runs a company specializing in personal protection. The main point of the interview was not drones but violence overall, however De Becker starts discussing drones towards the end of the podcast after the 2 hour 10 minute mark
His main point is this: when it comes to inflicting tissue damage, the most significant advancements in the history of weaponry have been those that have increased the distance between the attacker and the target. Such advancements reduce the risk to the assailant, thus increasing the amount of individuals willing to use these technologies to commit violence. This is why accelerated metal projectiles were such an effective discovery, and after those prior to drones the technology that's had the most impact has been remote detonated bombs, because they increase the distance between the target and the assailant even more. Drones go even further than this because they're essentially smart/guided bomb platforms or biological agent delivery systems (airborne pathogens dispersed over crowds etc)
Becker states that in his opinion commercial drones are the most significant advancement in tissue damage technology in a thousand years (ie. since bullets) because they're very cheap, very easy to use, and very hard to defend against. And the maneuverability is extremely high: drones with collective pitch can do stuff like this and it doesn't take that long for an individual to learn to pilot them.. When you add to that the fact that swarm technology already exists allowing a single operator to control up to 50 small drones that will avoid crashing into each other but can be guided to hit a single target, and that in the future the drones may well be entirely autonomous and not require even a signal to the controller, I find it hard to disagree with De Becker's estimation that this will be much, much more relevant advancement in weapon technology than people currently think.
As he points out, 'every weapon that has ever been developed has been used", we know that commercial drones are used as improvised weapons already, but this is in the very early stages. It's only a matter of time before some prominent politician/celebrity/business leader somewhere is assassinated by a drone or some terror group successfully carries out an attack in the west, and once the meme is out there, they're going to start ramping up. Compare to the use of vehicles as tools of terror; the technology itself has existed for over a century, but now that the weaponizing of personal vehicles has become a trend it's begun to spread and has started to be used even by groups pother than islamic terrorists, but a vehicle attack is very limited in scope and accuracy and can only be used to deliver random damage.
Drones are far more precise, and, when used correctly, far more deadly while at the same time being massively cheaper than vehicles. The fact that you can currently fly a drone in most western cities without much care of being caught even if you fly it in a no-fly area is a problem.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
They probably ignored it and assumed it was a bird. A larger drone would get detected more easily. Ships already have systems which can easily knock down a drone: Phalanx CIWS, Goalkeeper CIWS, 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun.
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/e8sol1/unarmed-civilian-drone
A 10 billion dollar ship can be sunk with a missile or a torpedo that costs 1000 times less. What else is new?
And what sort of justice warrior nazi asshole are you to twist facts like this?
It was DARPA who was funding research into making miniature flying systems back in the 2000's - on the order of the size of a small bird. Some of the defence analysts asked if "were they looking for backpacks for sparrows?". But miniature helicopters and then drones became possible.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Every concept conceived by humans can be used for both good and evil. Banning, regulating, or otherwise trying to control technology is a pointless exercise because ultimately, some human gets to decide what is good and what is evil.
> and NASA replaced mechanical pencils costing $130 each with pens costing less than $3 each... ...made in China.
The arms race stopped making sense once the Japanese invented karate.
Vietnam was also a lesson on the value of technology.
What are you going to do against a dozen exploding foam gliders?
A cheap flamethrower. A dragon would be better, but the upkeep on them is a bit steep.
Or perhaps just a stiff breeze.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The arms race stopped making sense once the Japanese invented karate.
It really would be a bitch to spend years learning a martial art just to wind up getting shot by a grunt who was drafted, put through several months of basic training, and given a rifle.
Though in terms of unarmed single combat, I'd put a real T'ai Chi master against any karate master any day. A real T'ai Chi master with the closed-door knowledge from one of the five family lineages in China. That's a lot more than just the forms (often called T'ai Chi Chuan) that are taught publically.
Russian Drone With Thermite Grenade Blows Up a Billion Dollars of Ukrainian Ammo
Vietnam was also a lesson on the value of technology.
Why? Because Nixon broke into Watergate?
The Japanese didn't invent Karate. The beginnings of modern Karate started in China and initially made it's way to Japan via Okinawa and Korea. Not that Japan didn't have native martial arts, there were plenty, but what is now known as Karate didn't originate in Japan.
I understand that the colored belt system in common use by many of the martial arts today originated with Judo, which does come from Japan.
The history of martial arts in that part of the world fills many books... so not enough room in a comment to go into it all. I have three books just on the history of martial arts on Okinawa alone, and that's hardly a comprehensive collection.
And Karate having any impact on the "arms race" really doesn't make much sense, but it does make a great sound bite.
--
Steve (AC because I haven't bothered to register in all these years)
Try harder. Your sentence structure is painful. You are a doof.
You're an idiot.
a) First both NASA and Russia originally used pencils. Pencils leave a lot of electrically conductive dust when you write which you don't want on a space ship in microgravity.
b) The Fisher company spent $1 million developing their zero gravity pen on their own. They had nothing to do with NASA, public money was not spent on the development. They created a pen that could write upside down, under water, in extreme hot or cold. And it was created to sell to the public at a profit.
Starting in 1968 both NASA and the Russian space agency started buying them for $2.39 (retail price was $3.98).
https://www.scientificamerican...
Meds, man, meds.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
A real T'ai Chi master with the closed-door knowledge from one of the five family lineages in China.
You mean like this acknowledged Tai Chi master who had his head handed to him by an MMA fighter?
Actually the drone can be very useful - The RPG is only going to get anything on the flight deck. And when at port, the flight deck is gong to be very clean. The real target is the guts of the ship.
The drone can be flown inside the repair/rearm/refuel portions of the interior of the ship. Your entry point is the elevators are to move aircraft. It is a big hole on the side of the ship. The intent is to fly a drone through that hole and blow up the first target of opportunity (aircraft, fuel truck, arming truck, weapons stores, personnel, anything flammable). If you do badly, you only destroy one aircraft and the fire suppression system stops the fire there. If you hit the jack pot you blow up something important: air craft elevator, fuel stores, weapon stores, partially dismantled flammable equipment. Trained Personnel and possibly limit the capability or temporarily disable the air craft carrier.
For the cost of $1,000 (drone, flight goggles, weapons, control mods and crash/deadman switch) you have diabled a 3 billion dollar aircraft carrier and caused millions of dollars of damage. From a cost/benefit ratio that is a success. If it fails the attacker is out $1,000 and can walk away without a problem. If the attacker succeeds, the attacker is still out $1,000, but the other side out millions of dollars.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
2 lbs of explosive would do nothing to a flight deck. A drone dropping a grenade onto a playground while kids are playing is a far more likely outcome. ISS is already doing that in Iraq and Syria. As they were being defeated in Mosul they sent drones into cleared areas and dropped grenades or mortar bombs onto the civilians. It seems someone always finds a way to use every technological advance to harm someone else.
Assuming that the drone owner was right and their drone could manage to heft 2 kg (4.4 lbs) of stuff around what exactly would that do to an aircraft carrier? It'd be a little like firing a paint ball gun at a car, annoying but not meaningful in any way. I agree that there should be contingencies for dealing with hostile drones but it's not the any bigger deal than dealing with nuts trying to break onto the carrier with a gun or trying to smuggle things in the cargo, both of which would likely be more dangerous than a drone with explosives.
It would be an anti-personnel mine AT MOST. To the carrier it'd do some scarring, to anyone outside 10ft, bugger all apart from slight wounds.
An RPG would do more damage than a drone with a little bomb.
Even better, sink it with a bunch of torpedos. The ship is docked and pretty much empty. No one is going to be there looking at the sonar while it's docked in a shipyard.
I'm mostly surprised that the owner of the drone is free and able to speak to the press, instead of being shuffled off to a blacksite somewhere, held in locked windowless room, and subjected to 'enhanced interrogation' to get him to confess his ties to some extremist group or other, while they trash his home sift through his life, and destroy his reputation with everyone he knows by pulling them all in for questioning.
Meds? Is that how Tim Cook pays you for sucking him off you little fucker?
Needed to send the message "I was just fooling around and made a mistake. Sorry, I'll never do it again."
Instead sent the message "I could have delivered 2 pounds of Semtex!"
Thereby lets the military know that said pilot knows what Semtex is, attacks with explosives are on his mind, and he can't be trusted (at best an overeager tech wannabe, at worst a practicing security threat).
What is it about drone operators and their sense of entitlement?
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity... what does Tim Cook have to do with Chinese drones or lasers? I'd love to know what triggered you so I can do it again.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The other issue is that the graphite dust from pencils is risky in microgravity for other reasons. It's potentially flammable (though not realistically in a 5psi O2 atmosphere, or 15psi normal atmosphere), and it gets into the astronauts lungs and so forth.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
These kind of vermin looking for social media "likes" are going to be the end of recreational drones. Don't feed them, they should get bitch-slapped on the face with a chair and banned from owning drones. This of course being somewhat an extreme measure but when no one can buy or fly a drone without a licence you'll come around
This is a bit of a non-story
1). The carrier has not been officially commissioned yet - it's still in the hands of the builders. It has RN Ratings and Officers onboard but no munitions, counter-measures, aircraft etc. - It's as about as warlike as a cross-channel ferry.
2). The deck is armoured - something the Royal Navy did before the US Navy : In the Pacific Royal Navy Carriers [and there were some there towards the end] survived direct bomb hits that caused major damage and fires on US Carriers with un-armoured decks. Additionally. it has various coverings on it.
3). The original quote from the muppet that did this never mentioned anything about security or explosives. I suspect he is trying to divert attention from the fact that he has broken a number of CAA regulations and is likely to find himself getting fined, not to mention interviews with various agencies who will be more than capable of putting the absolute fear of death into him.
All in all - he is a bit of a twat. Apparently he was trying to get to the gangway to speak to the "Captain" to get his drone back. Again - twat.
I doubt 2kg of Semtex would have done much damage to the deck of an aircraft carrier. They are built to withstand explosions from enemies and aircraft.
If you were standing on the deck nearby, different story of course.
But point taken, other payloads (biological or chemical) may affect operations until cleaned up.
Step out of the way? They're not carrying any significant explosive charge, they don't move that fast, and they're not going to chase anyone.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That would be a waste of $400.
How much range do the drones have while carrying explosives? Their controllers will have to be fairly close and fairly obvious and, soon, fairly dead. How are they going to move enough explosive to do more than scratch the paint ("grip it by the husk" is not a correct answer)? How stable will they be with a fairly large jet aircraft flying near them?
People have been working for decades on anti-ship missiles, which are intended to carry enough explosive to damage a ship and still have a chance of making it through the defenses.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Step out of the way? They're not carrying any significant explosive charge, they don't move that fast, and they're not going to chase anyone.
A reasonably-sized foam glider could carry a kilo, meaning a grenade, if you didn't care if it had a long glide. And perhaps you have not heard of this, but people make radio controlled gliders. Adding a raspi zero and a dinky camera and making it aspect track is pretty easy by modern standards, in most environments it doesn't have to be very good at it. Want to try again?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually Chinese got it from India by the budhdhist monks. "kara" is samskrutam for hand, and "te" means empty.
I'm not aware of foam gliders that can carry a kilo. We didn't have them when I was a kid. If you're foregoing long range, then it isn't any sort of stealth attack, and you can kill me more easily with other weapons. (Now that you've added controls, the camera, and the computer control, how much of that kilo is left?)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is just more breathless hype from drone fliers. "OMG, we could, like, totally fly a hundred of these things! And equip them with syringes and suck peoples' blood like giant mosquitoes! And no one could do ANYTHING!!!"
I first read the idea of swarms of drones, maybe 25 years ago. And this was specifically in the context of a military system and asymmetric warfare. "Overwhelm the bloated and slow fighters, radar and missiles with numbers" was the pitch, not to mention "cheap, cheap, cheap!!"
So where are the weapons systems doing this? Is General Dynamics marketing a deployable drone swarm? How about Russia, Great Britain, China? Anyone?
This is just drone wankers masturbating over their favorite technology. It might happen, in certain limited applications, eventually. It hasn't happened in the last quarter century though and still seems unlikely. There is far more military investment in lasers, rail guns and stealth than in drone swarms.
Real drones? Yeah sure, and military ones too, lots of them. Except... those military drones look a lot like the planes they are displacing. The military wants range, lots of advanced sensors, station-keeping abilities, and multiple weapons. All of which means the drones are fairly large, they are heavy, and expensive. They are light and small only in the context of a piloted military aircraft, but they aren't "light and tiny like a consumer drone".
Even the experimental infantry drones, used for scouting and local tactical situations. These aren't carrying weapons and there are no swarms.