Multiple US Navy destroyers swarmed by mysterious 'drones' off California coast(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Multiple US Navy destroyers swarmed by mysterious 'drones' off California coast
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroyers-were-swarmed-by-mysterious-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights?xid=twittershare
272 comments
The recent conflicts including the recent nagorno-karabakh is a very interesting change of pace in modern warfare.
Ukraine and Syria taught us that you still need a standing army and money to handle conflicts which involve a bunch of different armed ideological groups, foreign sponsored fighters and local terrorists/rebels. Azerbajan, Syria, most African countries and Russia are paying mercenaries to not have their names on certain conflicts and not lose nationals.
And the Armenia vs Azerbajan conflict was interesting because it is one of the first nation vs nation, army vs army war. Since both had decent Air defence systems, very few aircraft were directly used to fight or drop any bombs. Instead, they used missles, drones and suicide drones, which were more accurate then missles and cheaper than actual drones.
None of these conflicts so far really touched on the use of a Navy, because the conflicts were all local or in neighboring countries. So maybe its telling that navies are only useful with how China employs them, to enforce and scare of fishermen in their own waters or deterr other navies (like the Phillapines vs China sea debacle). And to transport troops across continents.
All us this + cyberwarfare and propoganda is this new era.
Ukraine and Syria taught us that you still need a standing army and money to handle conflicts which involve a bunch of different armed ideological groups, foreign sponsored fighters and local terrorists/rebels. Azerbajan, Syria, most African countries and Russia are paying mercenaries to not have their names on certain conflicts and not lose nationals.
And the Armenia vs Azerbajan conflict was interesting because it is one of the first nation vs nation, army vs army war. Since both had decent Air defence systems, very few aircraft were directly used to fight or drop any bombs. Instead, they used missles, drones and suicide drones, which were more accurate then missles and cheaper than actual drones.
None of these conflicts so far really touched on the use of a Navy, because the conflicts were all local or in neighboring countries. So maybe its telling that navies are only useful with how China employs them, to enforce and scare of fishermen in their own waters or deterr other navies (like the Phillapines vs China sea debacle). And to transport troops across continents.
All us this + cyberwarfare and propoganda is this new era.
The Armenia vs Azerbajan war of ~October 2020 is super informative towards the future of war. Though the poster is a noob account, their assessment is good for a brief HN comment.
If you are at all interested in how conflicts are going to proceed in the early 21st century, reading up on this war is essential:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
One thing that was mentioned is suicide drones. The umbrella term is 'loitering munitions', as they describe a wider range of platforms with similar intents. You can read more about them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition
For reference: The US has the Switchblase 600, a man-portable anti-armor drone/missile with a ~50mi range and ~40min of loiter time total, with a 'dash' speed of 115mph. It's controlled via touchscreen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
If you are at all interested in how conflicts are going to proceed in the early 21st century, reading up on this war is essential:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
One thing that was mentioned is suicide drones. The umbrella term is 'loitering munitions', as they describe a wider range of platforms with similar intents. You can read more about them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition
For reference: The US has the Switchblase 600, a man-portable anti-armor drone/missile with a ~50mi range and ~40min of loiter time total, with a 'dash' speed of 115mph. It's controlled via touchscreen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
Were you aware that the Marine Corps took down some Iranian dones using their MADIS system.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/18/heres-new-mar...
This was a bit novel in that they strapped a wheeled MADIS (an anti-drone "gun" on a humvee chassis more or less) to the deck of a naval ship and used it successfully to take down a potentially hostile drone. I know that the US Marine Corps and US Army take counter-UAV operations very seriously via electro-optical (laser), microwave, and various "other" electronic means to disrupt / destroy drone operations.
The army selected eight systems to fit the bill: https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2020/06/26/army-selects-ei...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/18/heres-new-mar...
This was a bit novel in that they strapped a wheeled MADIS (an anti-drone "gun" on a humvee chassis more or less) to the deck of a naval ship and used it successfully to take down a potentially hostile drone. I know that the US Marine Corps and US Army take counter-UAV operations very seriously via electro-optical (laser), microwave, and various "other" electronic means to disrupt / destroy drone operations.
The army selected eight systems to fit the bill: https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2020/06/26/army-selects-ei...
It's pretty undeniable that something significant is going on and has been for quite some time. What is now called drones might have been called UFO's or airships in a previous decade.
And you see the same old characters saying "certainly this is a covert project from another branch/country." That argument seems quite nebulous and plausible if you watch a lot of Marvel movies, but if you know the defense industry, and consider how long that argument has been used (since the Foo fighters of WW2), it falls apart. The US gov is behind the private sector in computing software and hardware by over a decade (and has been for a while), and really anything making a lot of money these days commercially is well ahead of the defense counterpart (small drones, rockets, etc.) Look to the pay rates for engineers working on TS projects and you can see why. The talent has been going to SV since the early 90's. The other countries with significantly smaller budgets? I doubt we'll find anyone from a contender country that can speak to the efficiency of their research on HN, but projecting from the much better funded and more advanced US and the efficiency of bureaucracies in general, it seems unlikely there's anything from China or Russia that can sneak up on us so easily, let alone do maneuvers described in some other incidents going back 70+ years.
And you see the same old characters saying "certainly this is a covert project from another branch/country." That argument seems quite nebulous and plausible if you watch a lot of Marvel movies, but if you know the defense industry, and consider how long that argument has been used (since the Foo fighters of WW2), it falls apart. The US gov is behind the private sector in computing software and hardware by over a decade (and has been for a while), and really anything making a lot of money these days commercially is well ahead of the defense counterpart (small drones, rockets, etc.) Look to the pay rates for engineers working on TS projects and you can see why. The talent has been going to SV since the early 90's. The other countries with significantly smaller budgets? I doubt we'll find anyone from a contender country that can speak to the efficiency of their research on HN, but projecting from the much better funded and more advanced US and the efficiency of bureaucracies in general, it seems unlikely there's anything from China or Russia that can sneak up on us so easily, let alone do maneuvers described in some other incidents going back 70+ years.
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36085/troubling-drone-...
Looks like an unashemed intimidation operation, given that there is nowhere in Guam a civilian can bring a car sized quadcopter, and island's tiny population.
It pretty much screams of somebody trying to say "we can fly our foo-drones over your missile battereys, and ship any time"
Of all countries, there is only one on record with car sized, gas powered quadcopters.
Looks like an unashemed intimidation operation, given that there is nowhere in Guam a civilian can bring a car sized quadcopter, and island's tiny population.
It pretty much screams of somebody trying to say "we can fly our foo-drones over your missile battereys, and ship any time"
Of all countries, there is only one on record with car sized, gas powered quadcopters.
Which country?
Guess the country
https://dronemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gas-Powe...
And the secon possible is the Unihawk family from Efy Tech
https://www.efy-tech.com/en/file/upload/2019/06/11/156040236...
https://dronemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gas-Powe...
And the secon possible is the Unihawk family from Efy Tech
https://www.efy-tech.com/en/file/upload/2019/06/11/156040236...
It seems far fetched to imagine any country would intimidate a power like US flying their easily recognisable drones. Just the risk of an accident causing a crash into the ship, and igniting a bigger conflict is sufficient enough for any country to not attempt such a thing. There are better ways to test your tech than doing something like this to a super power.
Also not sure how they were confident enough to deduce it was a drone. Clearly it was like 1000-1500 feet above them in dark.
We just chose to call a UFO a UAV. That's what I learned from the article.
Or.
May be it was just a test. They wanted to see how people would handle a situation like that.
Also not sure how they were confident enough to deduce it was a drone. Clearly it was like 1000-1500 feet above them in dark.
We just chose to call a UFO a UAV. That's what I learned from the article.
Or.
May be it was just a test. They wanted to see how people would handle a situation like that.
> It seems far fetched to imagine any country would intimidate a power like US flying their easily recognisable drones
"intimidate a power like US" is what China, and Russia are doing with monthly regularity around the world with zero pushback.
The only time ever USA gave a direct response was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham and even that was made more out of fear than a deliberate pushback, despite it sending kremlin into weeks long stupor.
"intimidate a power like US" is what China, and Russia are doing with monthly regularity around the world with zero pushback.
The only time ever USA gave a direct response was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham and even that was made more out of fear than a deliberate pushback, despite it sending kremlin into weeks long stupor.
Not to defend China or Russia, but you seem to think the USA is completely innocent and does not constantly intimidate anyone it thinks is not an ally (sometimes it does it even allies). Guam is actually a great example. Why do you think the USA keeps a military base on such an isolated location, really far from its shores? In fact, the USA has literal guns pointed at the head of every country in the world[1]. Saying that someone is intimidating the USA without pushbacks is laughable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...
Guam is a long-held US territory (stretching back to the Spanish-American War) that was occupied by the Japanese during WW2. It would be strange for the US military to not maintain a base there.
The Chinese CH-4 perhaps? Not sure.
Those are quite a few assumptions you're making to conclude "aliens" (which seems to be your implication).
First and most of all, you're assuming that this is a high-tech, difficult to mount operation. While the article does mention a few details in this direction (the speed and flight time, the number of drones), they only suggest that this would be a problem for consumer-level drones, not something that would be difficult for a military or commercial drone.
You're also conflating these reports with unspecified other reports going back 70 years to try to paint a more mysterious picture. This does not follow in any way.
First and most of all, you're assuming that this is a high-tech, difficult to mount operation. While the article does mention a few details in this direction (the speed and flight time, the number of drones), they only suggest that this would be a problem for consumer-level drones, not something that would be difficult for a military or commercial drone.
You're also conflating these reports with unspecified other reports going back 70 years to try to paint a more mysterious picture. This does not follow in any way.
> You're also conflating these reports with unspecified other reports going back 70 years to try to paint a more mysterious picture. This does not follow in any way.
There isn't enough info on this incident to make a meaningful conclusion, or to rule out that it is a group of sophisticated CalTech students launching their drone swarming research project from a research vessel with no idea the consequences of what they're doing. But there's a pattern of these incidents, and some (such as the incident in the same area with the Tic-Tac described by Commandor Fravor) don't have such an easy out.
> First and most of all, you're assuming that this is a high-tech, difficult to mount operation.
I think you overestimate how far consumer drones can fly or underestimate the radar capabilities of destroyers. The fact that a launch source was not identified is significant, whether we assume it came from domestic researchers or a hostile submarine in a US military training area outside of major civilian/military centers.
There isn't enough info on this incident to make a meaningful conclusion, or to rule out that it is a group of sophisticated CalTech students launching their drone swarming research project from a research vessel with no idea the consequences of what they're doing. But there's a pattern of these incidents, and some (such as the incident in the same area with the Tic-Tac described by Commandor Fravor) don't have such an easy out.
> First and most of all, you're assuming that this is a high-tech, difficult to mount operation.
I think you overestimate how far consumer drones can fly or underestimate the radar capabilities of destroyers. The fact that a launch source was not identified is significant, whether we assume it came from domestic researchers or a hostile submarine in a US military training area outside of major civilian/military centers.
They are called loitering munitions. By comparison, consumer gear is nowhere near to their capabilities. And I understand they fly autonomously better than a Tesla (sorry Elon).
I'm surprised there was no message left behind, in a bottle, saying "Thanks for all the selfies."
I'm surprised there was no message left behind, in a bottle, saying "Thanks for all the selfies."
Sorry, but when you dropped "The US gov is behind the private sector in computing software and hardware by over a decade (and has been for a while)" you lost all credibility. This is just completely inaccurate. Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind? Furthermore, I'd take a closer examination on who is funding the academics and reaping the benefits of the research. What an armchair comment.
Aye, there are a lot -- a LOT -- of well paid IT types around DC. Lots with clearances, and fancy pedigrees.
Isn't an accident NoVA, Southern MD, and the greater DC area are tech hubs.
Entirely a separate discussion from if the US DoD can handle drone swarms. They've spent the last 2 decades occupying two middle eastern countries and have been hemorrhaging money away in the process. That money could have gone towards civilian needs, but even if it didn't and the $$$ stayed with the military, the opportunity cost of going hard on counter-insurgency as a national strategy for 20 years is now clear.
Isn't an accident NoVA, Southern MD, and the greater DC area are tech hubs.
Entirely a separate discussion from if the US DoD can handle drone swarms. They've spent the last 2 decades occupying two middle eastern countries and have been hemorrhaging money away in the process. That money could have gone towards civilian needs, but even if it didn't and the $$$ stayed with the military, the opportunity cost of going hard on counter-insurgency as a national strategy for 20 years is now clear.
Wow. Not only DoD have drone swarms, they have been at the forefront of research, invented the concept of drone swarms, and have been testing them for at least 15 years. Search for DoD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030
lolthishuman(1)
> This is just completely inaccurate. What an armchair comment
I assume you are actually fully in the armchair, and have no idea what you're talking about.
> Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind?
So your enemy doesn't know what you have. Same as it has always been? In areas where the private sector cannot profit outside selling to the military (e.g. missiles/radar), then obviously the government is ahead because nobody else is really working on them. But perhaps you've watched too many sci-fi movies. We don't have a SHIELD with flying aircraft carriers.
I assume you are actually fully in the armchair, and have no idea what you're talking about.
> Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind?
So your enemy doesn't know what you have. Same as it has always been? In areas where the private sector cannot profit outside selling to the military (e.g. missiles/radar), then obviously the government is ahead because nobody else is really working on them. But perhaps you've watched too many sci-fi movies. We don't have a SHIELD with flying aircraft carriers.
Seems to me this would be a perfect opportunity to use lasers to shoot down drones. We have the technology in both targetting and lasers. I suppose that means someone has already thought of it and is working on it at raytheon or boeing.
https://youtu.be/1DXpPmpmcak
In 10 years it is not even going to be considered a threat. How are drones worse than mortar shells?
In 10 years it is not even going to be considered a threat. How are drones worse than mortar shells?
Just a guess. I have no idea how to make a mortar shell nor how to aim it accurately. For a drone I just tape some explosives to it and then fly it remotely via camera to the exact thing I want to blow up. I probably don't know enough about it but it seems like something I could do right now. Just go down to the local electronics or camera store, buy a drone. Not sure where I get the explosives.
Flying it via camera is very limiting, you have to be close enough.
However it's quite possible and indeed not that hard to build a long range, autonomous RC plane. You just need to use the sensors typically found in any smartphone: GPS, camera (for ground imaging), accelerometer, magnetometer and so on, add inexpensive barometers and ultrasound or optical sensors for altitude, and mix all that up with the proper algorithms to end up with really accurate positioning. In fact you can even have accurate positioning when losing GPS.
If you're not concerned about speed, a simple and cheap powered model sailplane made of styrofoam could easily be made to fly for hours on battery. Cost: a few hundred dollars worth of parts.
However it's quite possible and indeed not that hard to build a long range, autonomous RC plane. You just need to use the sensors typically found in any smartphone: GPS, camera (for ground imaging), accelerometer, magnetometer and so on, add inexpensive barometers and ultrasound or optical sensors for altitude, and mix all that up with the proper algorithms to end up with really accurate positioning. In fact you can even have accurate positioning when losing GPS.
If you're not concerned about speed, a simple and cheap powered model sailplane made of styrofoam could easily be made to fly for hours on battery. Cost: a few hundred dollars worth of parts.
For that last part just give this number a call and those boys will hook you up: 800-225-5324
>How are drones worse than mortar shells?
They're not worse. They're about the same.
From a pro-authoriatairian POV they're worse because the powers that be aren't seriously trying to keep them out of the hands of the commoners. The powers that be aren't doing that because nobody there are serious economic arguments against doing so and the danger to them is currently hypothetical. There's perceived risk that someday drones might someday help the BadGuys(TM) force a concession or topple a government.
Frankly, I don't see the big deal. The more asymmetric weapons systems and warfare techniques proliferate the more reason people have to be on good terms with each other. It's harder to bully people who can drone you or hack your power plant.
They're not worse. They're about the same.
From a pro-authoriatairian POV they're worse because the powers that be aren't seriously trying to keep them out of the hands of the commoners. The powers that be aren't doing that because nobody there are serious economic arguments against doing so and the danger to them is currently hypothetical. There's perceived risk that someday drones might someday help the BadGuys(TM) force a concession or topple a government.
Frankly, I don't see the big deal. The more asymmetric weapons systems and warfare techniques proliferate the more reason people have to be on good terms with each other. It's harder to bully people who can drone you or hack your power plant.
It's much harder to aim a mortar shell than a drone.
"The threshold necessary for small groups to conduct warfare has finally been breached and we are only starting to feel its effects. Over time, perhaps in as little as 20 years, and as the leverage provided by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination—with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win" John Robb 2007
I live in a fairly small country, where most population is in the capitol. I was just thinking the other day how you could probably take over the whole place with 1-2 million drones that probably cost <1B total. I don't think we're in any way prepared to handle that
Issue the people with nets, balloons, and shotguns.
Declare a national drone hunting holiday.
The vast majority of global civilian population doesn't have access to firearms.
True, but you can't fight a massively distributed attack using a very small concentrated force of professional soldiers; hence the population needs to be issued with weapons and training in an emergency for civil defense.
Conventional weapons like tanks and fixed emplacements just become easy targets.
Well then maybe that, too, is a problem that needs solved?
Regardless, a slamfire shotgun only requires two pipes and a nail. Ammo is still an issue, but it's a start.
Regardless, a slamfire shotgun only requires two pipes and a nail. Ammo is still an issue, but it's a start.
What if the drones have explosives? They could take out 100k people before we know what's happening
Why go through the trouble of using drone, just use a barrage conventional missiles, hypothetical country is unlikely to have anti-rocket system like iron dome
I'd assume systems like that require something like an army are regulated and in control of nation states. My point was something like a few hundred thousand drones could probably stealthily be acquired by a wealthy individual. If it's autonomous and remotely controlled you might not even know who's behind it
OK, but in this scenario, the wealthy individual is trying to do what? Take over the country?
Fine. Let him. When he does so, he quits being anonymous. Then assassinate him and restore the previous government. Bonus style points if you assassinate him with a drone.
Fine. Let him. When he does so, he quits being anonymous. Then assassinate him and restore the previous government. Bonus style points if you assassinate him with a drone.
> When he does so, he quits being anonymous.
Does he? Nothing stopping him from staying anonymous.
Does he? Nothing stopping him from staying anonymous.
Missiles are just simple suicide drones, really
IF that's the goal, a Neutron Bomb[1] would be far more efficient. From Wikipedia: "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory director Harold Brown and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev both described neutron bombs as a "capitalist bomb", because it was designed to destroy people while preserving property."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
Drone-whacking day?
> most population is in the capitol
Half of the US population wished it was in the capitol, too. /s
Half of the US population wished it was in the capitol, too. /s
I wonder if flak cannons might make a comeback here. Basically like a big shotgun.
Flak cannons are a little different than a shotgun. They explode into shrapnel once they reach the end of their fuse. They're more similar to a grenade launcher than a shotgun, imo.
I think a comeback is unlikely though. The travel time of shells combined with the agility and size of drones would make them very hard to hit. They work really well on large targets because (like a grenade launcher), anything close is "close enough". They were a good counter tactic for the relatively slow and lumbering B17's; they're easy to lead and there are important components everywhere. Drones are tiny and fast; the important bits on a B17 are much larger.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see something akin to a flak cannon that fires EMP shells, though. Flak cannons reduce their coverage over range as a matter of expansion. EMPs do not, and are only limited by the amount of energy we can pack into a shell/rocket. Rockets are honestly probably a better choice, because they can "track" the swarm if it tries to take evasive maneuvers. Shells don't really have that option.
Worst case scenario, nukes can be used as an EMP. We did make nuclear artillery shells for a time, though I'm not aware of an anti-aircraft EMP variant.
I think a comeback is unlikely though. The travel time of shells combined with the agility and size of drones would make them very hard to hit. They work really well on large targets because (like a grenade launcher), anything close is "close enough". They were a good counter tactic for the relatively slow and lumbering B17's; they're easy to lead and there are important components everywhere. Drones are tiny and fast; the important bits on a B17 are much larger.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see something akin to a flak cannon that fires EMP shells, though. Flak cannons reduce their coverage over range as a matter of expansion. EMPs do not, and are only limited by the amount of energy we can pack into a shell/rocket. Rockets are honestly probably a better choice, because they can "track" the swarm if it tries to take evasive maneuvers. Shells don't really have that option.
Worst case scenario, nukes can be used as an EMP. We did make nuclear artillery shells for a time, though I'm not aware of an anti-aircraft EMP variant.
The US military/intelligence apparatus is so large it wouldn't surprise me if this is yet another case of the left hand not knowing what the right is up to. Or maybe they had a vague idea, considering they didn't even attempt to shoot them down. Going off the nonchalant response, this is probably not the first time UAVs have flown over their ships. Except this time it was unplanned, and so kicked off an investigation.
I'm getting UFO crank vibes from both authors social media. Also no mention of request for comment from any official in the reporting. Just building a narrative from a selective release of FIOA requests.
I'm getting UFO crank vibes from both authors social media. Also no mention of request for comment from any official in the reporting. Just building a narrative from a selective release of FIOA requests.
Given how long the US military has been running drone operations world wide it's a near certainty they have war gamed the scenario of the adversary's drones attack at night under a new moon.
If the drones are quad copters then they would need to be released released pretty close to the target (under 10 miles say). If they are winged drones then they are most likely military in origin.
The story of the drones over Colorado seems to have sunk beneath the seas. However there were so many drones and so many sightings who ever was behind that would certainly have anticipated that the drones would be detected by civilians.
The fact that none of these drones have been captured (just shoot at the lights) leads me to belief these are all military in origin war gaming drone warfare 2.0.
If the drones are quad copters then they would need to be released released pretty close to the target (under 10 miles say). If they are winged drones then they are most likely military in origin.
The story of the drones over Colorado seems to have sunk beneath the seas. However there were so many drones and so many sightings who ever was behind that would certainly have anticipated that the drones would be detected by civilians.
The fact that none of these drones have been captured (just shoot at the lights) leads me to belief these are all military in origin war gaming drone warfare 2.0.
That's my thought. They sure as fuck weren't civilian drones. And the FOIA requests ran into a classified wall.
My money is on <other unit/branch/ally> was doing it and failed to notify or something.
Somebody probably got an ass chewing/punishment and that was the end of it as far as the navy was concerned.
My money is on <other unit/branch/ally> was doing it and failed to notify or something.
Somebody probably got an ass chewing/punishment and that was the end of it as far as the navy was concerned.
I don't get why the UAVs need lights. They might not have been detected without them-- so it's like they were asking too be seen.
Also just an aside, I was on that cruise ship that was in the vicinity a month before this. I went out onto the deck (the bow) late at night. We were way out offshore near the military operating area. It was pitch black out there and creepy as fuck.
Also just an aside, I was on that cruise ship that was in the vicinity a month before this. I went out onto the deck (the bow) late at night. We were way out offshore near the military operating area. It was pitch black out there and creepy as fuck.
> I don't get why the UAVs need lights. They might not have been detected without them-- so it's like they were asking too be seen.
Maybe that was meant as intimidation?
Maybe that was meant as intimidation?
It's an identification counter measure.
It's a small object emitting a bright light. Trying to take a picture or identify the craft becomes impossible.
It's a small object emitting a bright light. Trying to take a picture or identify the craft becomes impossible.
For visual line-of-sight flight, it's helpful to have different color LEDs on the front and rear so you can tell which way it's pointed. Certainly sounds like a photographer job.
The lighting is likely an unintentional by-product of the technology that powers the craft.
Heat is, light not so much. Unless you specifically choose to be seen, which seems to be the case here.
they definitely were asking to be seen. unclear why, though, other than as some sort of taunt.
I bet it’s incredible when the sky is clear tho.
Folks, there are very strict conditions under which a Navy ship can use weapons, and some unknown aircraft isn't gonna be a situation that they're going to open fire. You could be shooting some moron in an ultralight or some kids science project or whatever.
The US Navy is a professional organization, not some scared cops who shoot first and ask questions later.
Edit: I'm done here, but please stop all the military fantasy where everything is a threat and needs to be shot. This was like 50 miles from the coast of the USA, not Iran or NK.
The US Navy is a professional organization, not some scared cops who shoot first and ask questions later.
Edit: I'm done here, but please stop all the military fantasy where everything is a threat and needs to be shot. This was like 50 miles from the coast of the USA, not Iran or NK.
Unfortunately, I think it's a little more 21st Century Pearl Harbor, and less or at all benevolent.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J0jD8Swl3h8/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J0jD8Swl3h8/maxresdefault.jpg
Frankly, your thoughts don't matter because you don't have the expertise to judge.
Frankly, a terse comment. So tell me what am I missing?
[deleted]
Oh, so you do have the expertise to judge, but that other poster doesn't. Gotcha.
Can you please point me to the thread where you justify this (otherwise unbearably arrogant) response with your credentials?
(Seriously, how did this comment not get yanked as an obvious ad hom troll?)
Can you please point me to the thread where you justify this (otherwise unbearably arrogant) response with your credentials?
(Seriously, how did this comment not get yanked as an obvious ad hom troll?)
I'm a former SWO qualified Naval officer, as stated elsewhere I believe. I vouched your comment just to reply, because it's important to be correct. I'm not going into details about anything else, I've gone into detail elsewhere about this topic already.
You come here to comment rudely, well outside your supposed SWO naval officer context, but without demonstrating evidence of any qualification in a relevant and visible context, and others are the idiots for doubting such absurdly terse replies on a technology site where explanation and questions are par for the course among many types of technical experts? Is being a socially clueless asshole part of your qualification requisites as well?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Don't know if that last part has always been true.
Don't know if that last part has always been true.
Yes, and every officer since then has been drilled not to do such mistakes. The military fucks up like this sometimes, but that's one event out of millions of miles steamed.
Not defending this event, those sailors should have been court martialed, but your snarky comment didn't add anything.
Not defending this event, those sailors should have been court martialed, but your snarky comment didn't add anything.
Aren't those UFO videos in the New York Times a few years back from the same general area, off the coast of San Diego? Is this the same thing?
(Also, this is the US military messing with itself. Someone in some skunk works hanger in Nevada has some secret weapon and they want to test it out on a real navy.)
(Also, this is the US military messing with itself. Someone in some skunk works hanger in Nevada has some secret weapon and they want to test it out on a real navy.)
>(Also, this is the US military messing with itself. Someone in some skunk works hanger in Nevada has some secret weapon and they want to test it out on a real navy.)
This would seem to be a pretty likely explanation (near-infinitely more likely than ETs, at least). It'd also perfectly explain David Fravor's story of spotting strange vehicles during a Navy training exercise (e.g. how the craft seemed to have advance knowledge of a Navy meeting spot, and the reaction from his superiors).
He thinks it couldn't be US military, but if it's some covert/intelligence thing, doesn't seem too implausible that they may try to do a realistic, unannounced red team exercise during a routine training exercise. That wouldn't explain his claims of it performing gravity-defying maneuvers, but there's no evidence of that besides his and some of his colleagues' testimonies, though.
This would seem to be a pretty likely explanation (near-infinitely more likely than ETs, at least). It'd also perfectly explain David Fravor's story of spotting strange vehicles during a Navy training exercise (e.g. how the craft seemed to have advance knowledge of a Navy meeting spot, and the reaction from his superiors).
He thinks it couldn't be US military, but if it's some covert/intelligence thing, doesn't seem too implausible that they may try to do a realistic, unannounced red team exercise during a routine training exercise. That wouldn't explain his claims of it performing gravity-defying maneuvers, but there's no evidence of that besides his and some of his colleagues' testimonies, though.
I hasten to add that I sure as shit hope it's UFOs, because maybe they can do carbon capture, or fusion, or tell us if Tony Soprano dies at the end or not. I just don't think it's all that likely.
I’ve thought this could be a likely explanation especially considering the crazy patents that the US Navy has filed.
I think it would be pretty upsetting if the navy had access to super advanced technology and was withholding it for a decade like this.
They absolutely are, if only in the area of remote sensing technology.
At some point it would trickle down to us. I wouldn't be surprised if command centres are using AR tech to plan out battlefields or aircraft designs.
> Aren't those UFO videos in the New York Times a few years back from the same general area
Yes.
> Is this the same thing?
Unfortunately the article doesn't have any details like what shape they had or how big they were so at this point it's anyone's guess.
Yes.
> Is this the same thing?
Unfortunately the article doesn't have any details like what shape they had or how big they were so at this point it's anyone's guess.
I'm surprised they didn't try to disable them. Considering the range off-shore and the flight time, these certainly aren't consumer grade drones.
> This calls into question the “drone” designation. Was there ever even a hard description of these craft beyond lights in the sky?
> This calls into question the “drone” designation. Was there ever even a hard description of these craft beyond lights in the sky?
agreed for the second sighting after everyone was made aware of them not being anything navy related. Given the waters, the proximity to other testing sites, it's likely the sailors didn't man the guns the first time for the simple reason of perhaps not being in the loop for a test.
Second time sounds like they weren't prepared to respond quick enough.
Second time sounds like they weren't prepared to respond quick enough.
Would you want to reveal what defenses you have against drones that are not doing any damage? It is possible such a swarm was intended precisely to suss out what defenses there may be.
Surely one of the people on the deck with a shotgun could have a go at it without revealing too much secret information
As a former ordnance officer: lol
No one is going be the CO the opens fire on a non combatant drone on the USA coast, as you'd lose your command pretty fast.
Edit: I can't post faster, so here's a response to a reply:
I didn't peruse the logs myself, so I don't know the situation, but the rules of engagement are pretty strict, and also they may not have even had ordnance onboard for the weapons needed to take out one of these things. Not every ship carries live rounds all the time, and near the USA coast we pretty much never wanted to have loaded guns.
Like I said elsewhere, the US Navy isn't a bunch of untrained psychos looking to shoot stuff. Officers and enlisted are trained to put our lives on the line, not get scared and shoot everything that looks weird or threatening.
I don't get the bloodlust shown in here!
No one is going be the CO the opens fire on a non combatant drone on the USA coast, as you'd lose your command pretty fast.
Edit: I can't post faster, so here's a response to a reply:
I didn't peruse the logs myself, so I don't know the situation, but the rules of engagement are pretty strict, and also they may not have even had ordnance onboard for the weapons needed to take out one of these things. Not every ship carries live rounds all the time, and near the USA coast we pretty much never wanted to have loaded guns.
Like I said elsewhere, the US Navy isn't a bunch of untrained psychos looking to shoot stuff. Officers and enlisted are trained to put our lives on the line, not get scared and shoot everything that looks weird or threatening.
I don't get the bloodlust shown in here!
What's surprising to people is the fact that rules of engagement are inconsistent across government entities. E.g., when you think of local police, people characterize firearm usage in a way that is not measured or protocol-driven. So people are substituting the experiences they're familiar with, and applying them (incorrectly) in a naval context.
This is probably it, even between branches there are major differences, the Navy and Air Force both tend to be more educated than the ground forces which tend to attract soldiers and Marines who want to play Battlefield games in real life.
> I don't get the bloodlust shown in here!
This is how untrained people think. This particular group (the people who frequent this site) would probably want to know, quite strongly, what the craft are trying to do, and who was piloting them.
It was probably russia fucking with us from a submarine nearby.
This is how untrained people think. This particular group (the people who frequent this site) would probably want to know, quite strongly, what the craft are trying to do, and who was piloting them.
It was probably russia fucking with us from a submarine nearby.
Sounds reasonable. Or whoever was behind the crazy infrasound weapons used against US diplomats in Cuba.
Was that ever actually proven to be an infrasound weapon? I recall the story being pretty odd and it just slipped out of the spotlight
Nobody knows for sure, however the most plausible explanation put forward is neurological side effects of a banned pesticide being sprayed heavily in the embassy compound to combat Zika. They found the same pesticide was in use in Guangzhou, where diplomatic personnel complained of the same issues.
https://www.scribd.com/document/426438895/Etude-du-Centre-de...
https://www.scribd.com/document/426438895/Etude-du-Centre-de...
If anyone (with sufficient resources) can send a drone swarm to go harass, or worse, anyone, including the US Navy, and there's nothing that can be done about it then eventually I think something quite bad is going to happen.
It reminds me of 9/11. Everyone knew that crashing commercial aircraft could cause a great deal of destruction but somehow we could never prepare for such a scenario until it actually happened.
It reminds me of 9/11. Everyone knew that crashing commercial aircraft could cause a great deal of destruction but somehow we could never prepare for such a scenario until it actually happened.
> Everyone knew that crashing commercial aircraft could cause a great deal of destruction but somehow we could never prepare for such a scenario until it actually happened.
Are we prepared for that today?
Are we prepared for that today?
Are we not? Current protocols eliminate almost all chances of taking over a plane with box cutters. People now know what is up and will risk a laceration to take out some homeboys when they know it means certain death if they don't
Well they installed locks on the pilot's door which seems to have neutered the approach so far.
Interestingly and off topic, the same lock that is intended to prevent take over of a plane, was used by a pilot to crash the plane and kill all 150 people [1]:
> The crash was caused deliberately by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, who had previously been treated for suicidal tendencies and declared "unfit to work" by his doctor. Lubitz kept this information from his employer and instead reported for duty. Shortly after reaching cruise altitude and while the captain was out of the cockpit, he locked the cockpit door and initiated a controlled descent that continued until the aircraft impacted a mountainside.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
> The crash was caused deliberately by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, who had previously been treated for suicidal tendencies and declared "unfit to work" by his doctor. Lubitz kept this information from his employer and instead reported for duty. Shortly after reaching cruise altitude and while the captain was out of the cockpit, he locked the cockpit door and initiated a controlled descent that continued until the aircraft impacted a mountainside.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
Nothing is 100%. Clearly the chances of leaving doors wide open is much more dangerous than locking them.
You're right. We're probably going to see an attack on a stadium full of people that involves a drone swarm crop dusting the crowd with a combination of pesticides and nail bombs.
It's gonna suck to see the end of outdoor music shows in our life time. :-/
It's gonna suck to see the end of outdoor music shows in our life time. :-/
I wouldn't be surpised if there are over 50k individuals in the US with the electronics/computer knowledge to pull this off. All it takes is one person to develop an obsession with it and spend the time needed to pull it off. If you look at a 10-20 year time frame I'd say there's a high certaintity that someone commits a terror attack via a large number of drone.
The saving grace here is that people who want to terrorise often aren't the same with these skills IMO. If you have the skill/knowledge to make a drone swarm you probably have other valuable skills, have a good job and live comfortably. Lower chances of radicalisation.
The saving grace here is that people who want to terrorise often aren't the same with these skills IMO. If you have the skill/knowledge to make a drone swarm you probably have other valuable skills, have a good job and live comfortably. Lower chances of radicalisation.
You're looking at it backwards. Some of those who are already radicalized have the background and mental capacity that they could learn the knowledge needed to pull this off. Al Qaeda didn't radicalize pilots; they sent radicals to flight school.
I dont think its clear that nothing can be done, its just that nothing was done. Going weapons hot with military anti aircraft guns within a few miles of civilian ships and aircraft is probably not something that any sane officer is going to order, unless there is a safety of life issue.
A shotgun doesn't "go for miles" they could have easily brought down some of these invaders to see what was going on (if they got lucky)
So serious question from an operational perspective: One of these drones were over the helipad, which I would have assumed would be considered 'controlled airspace'... If they knock down drones that go over airports, why not over a military vessel's airspace?
Or is it not considered restricted airspace if not in use? etc
Conditions off the Californian coast are different to a Straight of Hormuz transit. Every deployment will have command guidance, RoE, threat briefings, maintain a picture of possible threats etc. A ship doing routine training is probably under default 'self defence' rules. And no CO wants to be the one to mistakenly blast some civilians into pink mist.
Experience shows that mistakenly blasting some civilians into pink mist doesn't mean anything if those civilians aren't white US citizens on US soil...
You can certainly choose to believe this, but it is wrong.
What you are referring to is choosing to blow something up based on a systematic approach that follows the laws of armed conflict, with frequent legal oversight, separate after action review, in a system that strongly punishes failure to follow process. This system is fully endorsed by the US Congress, representing the citizenry.
So if some civilians get blown up, 9/10 it was a deliberate decision.
What you are referring to is choosing to blow something up based on a systematic approach that follows the laws of armed conflict, with frequent legal oversight, separate after action review, in a system that strongly punishes failure to follow process. This system is fully endorsed by the US Congress, representing the citizenry.
So if some civilians get blown up, 9/10 it was a deliberate decision.
I meant that there are no actual repercussions.
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1...
repeated incidents where US killed citizens of other countries with impunity and no repercussions for the perps
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1...
repeated incidents where US killed citizens of other countries with impunity and no repercussions for the perps
Rogers certainly got off lightly, as did the system that promoted him, and the US has to own that, along with all the other atrocities. The US pays in a thousand ways they choose not to account for -- the guilty have externalised the costs.
Shooting down unaccounted for drones isn't bloodlust, it's common sense. They should have taken down at least a couple of them to try and ascertain what's going on, how can you defend against something that you don't understand.
I don't understand that mentality. At the very least I would think they would be considered a security risk since they could be spying on sensitive systems. It's not like we're talking about manned aircraft here.
Same mentality that would fire a CIO whose breach mitigation strategy was to unplug a couple computers in the "server room" - its a nonsensical reaction that only demonstrates your lack of knowledge and your inability to recognize your lack of knowledge, you're not going to get much out of hand ordnance in a situation like this
I don't see any real similarity between those two situations.
There aren't any details in the article on the size of the drones or their distance but I think a destroyer would have a wide range of weapons available from which to choose the appropriate level of response.
Doing nothing and hoping it goes away doesn't seem like the wisest response to this type of incident.
There aren't any details in the article on the size of the drones or their distance but I think a destroyer would have a wide range of weapons available from which to choose the appropriate level of response.
Doing nothing and hoping it goes away doesn't seem like the wisest response to this type of incident.
Not trolling you, genuinely trying to bridge a communication gap I see both sides of: they, and I, reacted literally to I think what you meant to be hyperbole, i.e. by saying "Surely one of the people on the deck with a shotgun could have a go at it without revealing too much secret information", you meant to say "why didn't they take any aggressive action?":
The other comments speak to various factors why it was more complicated, and just affirming that decision wouldn't have enabled action, TL;DR: you don't start throwing $500K missiles at lights 1,000 feet above deck when you're right off the coast of the US, and also we don't have nearly all the info here, just a subset of a subset of docs that got through via FOIA two years ago, you can safely assume that would have been considered at the time
The other comments speak to various factors why it was more complicated, and just affirming that decision wouldn't have enabled action, TL;DR: you don't start throwing $500K missiles at lights 1,000 feet above deck when you're right off the coast of the US, and also we don't have nearly all the info here, just a subset of a subset of docs that got through via FOIA two years ago, you can safely assume that would have been considered at the time
To be fair, they equip the SNOOPIE team w/ COTS, hand held video cameras rather than installing some sophisticated, centrally managed surveillance camera system. OTOH, it's much less dangerous for a bunch sailors to run around on deck with cameras than with shotguns.
If just looking at a boat is enough to reveal vital secrets, then that ship has already sailed.
There's a difference between going 'weapons free' with the ship's AA CIWS vs sending some MPs up with small arms (some of these things were close)
There's no blood in a UAV, shooting one down is only destruction of property, not bloodlust.
It's intellectual curiosity. Nobody would be harmed by blasting one and figuring out what it is and who it belongs to.
It's intellectual curiosity. Nobody would be harmed by blasting one and figuring out what it is and who it belongs to.
The problem is when you make a mistake and now an Iranian plane is in the water. Part of the job of the armed forces is that they stand and handle the risk far more intelligently than we would, i.e. they don't react in terror constantly.
Three responses up though someone is just suggesting that a sailor with a shotgun could take down one of the drones that was hovering close over the helipad.
That negates the possibility of misidentifying a plane as a drone, or hitting anything unintended, or of any risk of taking down a plane at all.
There's a wide gulf of responses between that and firing off an anti-aircraft missile in a "using a bazooka as a flyswatter" kind of application.
That negates the possibility of misidentifying a plane as a drone, or hitting anything unintended, or of any risk of taking down a plane at all.
There's a wide gulf of responses between that and firing off an anti-aircraft missile in a "using a bazooka as a flyswatter" kind of application.
I suspect that they can fry electronics by using the radar offensively.
I doubt they’ve been tested for that, or are typically configured to do so.
I have seen a consumer DJI drone forced into return to home mode with an old satellite TV dish and bits out of a microwave oven. They don’t cope well with 900-ish watts of semi directed 2.4GHz noise. That guy says he eventually got that to work at over 1km range. It never “fried the electronics” though, even at short ranges.
(Yes, I have some strange friends and acquaintances...)
I have seen a consumer DJI drone forced into return to home mode with an old satellite TV dish and bits out of a microwave oven. They don’t cope well with 900-ish watts of semi directed 2.4GHz noise. That guy says he eventually got that to work at over 1km range. It never “fried the electronics” though, even at short ranges.
(Yes, I have some strange friends and acquaintances...)
source?
[deleted]
Perhaps US Navy captains are less than eager to go down in history as shooting down a civilian airliner. Learning from history and all.
Lolz Captain Rogers got a Legion of Merit award after the Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Post-tour_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Post-tour_...
Airliners don't fly over the ocean hundreds of miles from shore at less than two thousand feet MSL.
They're not off the shelf drones, but it's long been possible to have long range homemade RC planes, even autonomous ones. I remember seeing such videos 10 years ago on Youtube for example, though hobbyists who might be doing that today are not being so public about it since authorities have been cracking down hard on it.
US Navy destroyers are equipped with CIWS and AA missiles designed to engage multiple supersonic sea skimming cruise missiles simultaneously. If the destroyers had felt that they were in any danger they would have quickly made mincemeat out of the UAVs. Still curious to know who operated their (fairly capable) drones in such a brazen manner though.
With so many civilian vessels nearby, and so near the coast, it seems like "shoot first and ask questions later" might not be the way to go in cases like this. A Phalanx CIWS round can travel over 5 km if it doesn't hit anything.
Here's what CIWS look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
Do those things have the capability to attack such tiny targets that are already close in? We're talking about something the size and speed of a bird. By the time you realize it's not a bird it's probably already on top of you. Moreover, they're small enough that they wouldn't represent a substantial threat to a ship in and of themselves (as compared to, say, an explosive-laden dinghy), and so perhaps not necessarily the kind of target that would've been specified for these weapons systems. I would imagine defenses for such small UAVs would be more in the vein of electronic countermeasures.
Do those things have the capability to attack such tiny targets that are already close in? We're talking about something the size and speed of a bird. By the time you realize it's not a bird it's probably already on top of you. Moreover, they're small enough that they wouldn't represent a substantial threat to a ship in and of themselves (as compared to, say, an explosive-laden dinghy), and so perhaps not necessarily the kind of target that would've been specified for these weapons systems. I would imagine defenses for such small UAVs would be more in the vein of electronic countermeasures.
> Do those things have the capability to attack such tiny targets that are already close in?
Yes
> We're talking about something the size and speed of a bird
Birds have nothing on stealthy, supersonic anti-ship missiles.
> By the time you realize it's not a bird it's probably already on top of you
In a war scenario all wildlife gets shot first. Modern systems developed in the past ten years also commonly have the capability to discern bird wings from propellers for this scenario. Hurray cheaper compute, everybody can run a SVM classifier in real-time now. Without spending too much money on your radar (40k USD? parts only) you can classify birds at about 0.5-1km away, who knows the exact capability of people with money to spend on the problem.
> I would imagine defenses for such small UAVs would be more in the vein of electronic countermeasures.
?Porque no los dos?
Yes
> We're talking about something the size and speed of a bird
Birds have nothing on stealthy, supersonic anti-ship missiles.
> By the time you realize it's not a bird it's probably already on top of you
In a war scenario all wildlife gets shot first. Modern systems developed in the past ten years also commonly have the capability to discern bird wings from propellers for this scenario. Hurray cheaper compute, everybody can run a SVM classifier in real-time now. Without spending too much money on your radar (40k USD? parts only) you can classify birds at about 0.5-1km away, who knows the exact capability of people with money to spend on the problem.
> I would imagine defenses for such small UAVs would be more in the vein of electronic countermeasures.
?Porque no los dos?
I don't think they can afford to see every bird as a threat during a battle. That means they'll also see every piece of shrapnel as a threat. And every piece of outgoing large munitions. I got the impression that speed and direction of travel are common filters. So something that's slow, tiny, and changing direction a lot is legitimately going to be hard to distinguish from a lot of non-threatening things.
I can't speculate on what's actually on US Navy warships right now, but I'm telling you commercially you can distinguish birds from drones under a kilometer away today. The knowledge has been around on how to do so with radar since 2006 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1603402, but even without that, there are numerous combined radar-camera surveillance systems out there for accurate target classification. Not like you don't have time to cue a camera to look at an interesting radar target when it's travelling slowly like a UAV might.
The military’s been able to distinguish this since the early 90s — at least. And yes modern drones didn’t exist in the 90s but other similarly-sized machines did, eg balloon-mounted telemetry devices.
Citation: personal experience with those sensor systems.
Citation: personal experience with those sensor systems.
The parent is correct. They have considerable capacity to accurately classify everything in their regional vicinity in milliseconds. This is old capability.
Tracking millions of entities in your general space in real-time is definitely possible today. I have little reason to believe the US Navy cannot do it too.
Tracking millions of entities in your general space in real-time is definitely possible today. I have little reason to believe the US Navy cannot do it too.
Unless wildlife is wearing armor, the radar and even polarimetric light signature is vastly different between a bird and shrapnel even if it's not moving at all. Not all detection methods are heuristic.
An eg Exocet missile is only 12" in diameter when it's approaching you head-on. So optically it would be similar to a DJI-size drone. Thermal will be vastly different ;)
So I thought about it, and even if a small drone was loaded with explosives it really couldn’t damage a war ship. Unless it attacked the sensors.
A shaped charge hitting the EOSS, the radar dome, or parts of the Aegis system’s sensor array could potentially cripple the ship’s ability to defend itself.
A shaped charge hitting the EOSS, the radar dome, or parts of the Aegis system’s sensor array could potentially cripple the ship’s ability to defend itself.
No not by itself. Honestly I know very little about modern explosives but I could imagine a swarm of drones, made of or carrying explosives could converge on a critical section of a target additively making a substantial explosive force.
I know just enough about material science to say probably not. A munition needs to break or penetrate a surface to be effective. To do that it needs to apply a great deal of force in a short period of time- spreading the force out over space or time reduce the destructive capability of the munition. So getting hit 500 times by 1 lbs bombs is not the same as getting hit once by a 500 lbs bomb- it’s not additive, the 500 lbs destroys things the 500 1 lbs can’t.
That being said, I’d imagine being on the receiving end of 500 1 lbs explosives is still a very bad day.
That being said, I’d imagine being on the receiving end of 500 1 lbs explosives is still a very bad day.
Right, if I apply 1 pound of force to your head 520 times, you’ll be really annoyed with me. If I apply 520 pounds of force to your head once, I’ve just crushed your skull.
If each of those 1 lb bombs lands precisely on one of the ship's sensors, then that ship is out of action, even if its hull has not been breached anywhere.
One could imagine other payloads like chaff, smoke, or even paint or flash bangs to disable equipment and injure the crew perhaps. Not sure how efficient that would be though.
100 drones for misting gasoline, 10 drones for igniting it?
US uses Phalanx CIWS. Here is a video all about Phalanx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrpEfNaQO8&ab_channel=USMil...
From what I read, those quadcopters were far bigger than a bird, and even more noisier than civilian quadcopters, heard from hundreds of meters away.
Did I miss some description of the size of the UAVs?
Fair point. Based on the admittedly thin circumstantial evidence in the article, I assumed relatively small craft. For example,
1) Why would a Carnival cruise ship feel the need to disclaim involvement for anything except a small, COTS drone? (IOW, presumably they at least believed they could have been such small drones.)
2) 4+ were spotted together. Wouldn't those be audible, especially if much larger than COTS drones?
3) The lights ("white light", "red flashing light") suggests COTS drones, especially because the cruise ship also noticed them. If they were special purpose military or intelligence drones, why keep the lights on?
Granted, the supposed distances involved suggest otherwise, but the article never establishes why they believed the drones were necessarily flown such distances. Rather, it seems those distances are based on the presumption that the drones were flown from one of the ships with active AIS. But that's a rather dubious assumption in the context of someone buzzing military ships w/ multiple drones.
1) Why would a Carnival cruise ship feel the need to disclaim involvement for anything except a small, COTS drone? (IOW, presumably they at least believed they could have been such small drones.)
2) 4+ were spotted together. Wouldn't those be audible, especially if much larger than COTS drones?
3) The lights ("white light", "red flashing light") suggests COTS drones, especially because the cruise ship also noticed them. If they were special purpose military or intelligence drones, why keep the lights on?
Granted, the supposed distances involved suggest otherwise, but the article never establishes why they believed the drones were necessarily flown such distances. Rather, it seems those distances are based on the presumption that the drones were flown from one of the ships with active AIS. But that's a rather dubious assumption in the context of someone buzzing military ships w/ multiple drones.
The Navy knows every ship that is anywhere close to it, whether or not it has its AIS turned on, even if it's underwater.
The Navy can know, if it wants. Cataloging every pleasure boat and fish trawler days or weeks after the fact is something else entirely.
Also, the Navy's recent history of situational awareness isn't the greatest. See, e.g., https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crash...
Also, the Navy's recent history of situational awareness isn't the greatest. See, e.g., https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crash...
If you can detect it, it is dead.
https://youtu.be/bdwjcayPuag
https://youtu.be/bdwjcayPuag
For a UAV hovering over the helicopter pad I would imagine that small arms would suffice.
Most target shooters couldn't hit a drone that wasn't hovering let alone a sailor who had guns training several years back. A shotgun would be the way to get these guys when they got in close enough.
Shotguns. Automatic shotguns would seem to be right for this.
Would that weaponry be capable of taking out a small target that can dance?
I’d like to understand the rules of engagement- it seems a bit odd we’d just stand around watching them.
I’d like to understand the rules of engagement- it seems a bit odd we’d just stand around watching them.
But how expensive are those missiles? Are they meant for killing small drones?
> But how expensive are those missiles?
i don't think the officers in charge of protecting the ship generally factor the material costs of doing so in to their decisions. they've got standing orders from above, and somewhere far up the chain, somebody traded off costs, lives, reputation, etc, etc. dude at the bottom has a set of rules.
i don't think the officers in charge of protecting the ship generally factor the material costs of doing so in to their decisions. they've got standing orders from above, and somewhere far up the chain, somebody traded off costs, lives, reputation, etc, etc. dude at the bottom has a set of rules.
Well they should factor in strategic loss by attrition. If you shoot a $1 million dollar missile at every $100 dollar drone, that’s a good way to lose a war.
Not sure about mid ranking officers, but captains who are in charge of ships think about such things.
Not sure about mid ranking officers, but captains who are in charge of ships think about such things.
From my perspective of American warfare - shooting a $1 million dollar missile at every $100 drone is how they keep the war going :)
HN conveniently forgets that a $100 dollar drone has a $100 performance. Smaller range, smaller payload, worse navigation electronics. You can probably kill unprotected civilians and protected soldiers if the explosives reach the head. That's scary for civilians but for the military? It's only as bad as bullets and missiles.
But does the 1 million dollar missile cost 1 million to build a second one?
Often times military cost per unit factors in a fixed R&D cost. It doesn't necessarily mean it literally cost 1 million in parts and labor to assemble the single missile.
Often times military cost per unit factors in a fixed R&D cost. It doesn't necessarily mean it literally cost 1 million in parts and labor to assemble the single missile.
Most warships carry 40mm or 20mm minigun-like weapons which seem far more well-suited to taking down drones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
All the Destroyers listed in the article definitely have 1 or 2 CIWS on board. I'm confident that would do the trick -- having seen them in action.
Additionally, each of those Destroyers have 7 (if I recall correctly) .50 caliber machine gun mounts around the perimeter of the ship, which could also probably handle the drones.
Additionally, each of those Destroyers have 7 (if I recall correctly) .50 caliber machine gun mounts around the perimeter of the ship, which could also probably handle the drones.
I can't recall where, but I saw something that said that they cost about a million dollars each.
So they declined to engage, and this incident left zero physical evidence at all?
My honest guess is it was staged, to “help” congress approve the new drone defense budget (which is probably not a terrible idea).
Next!
My honest guess is it was staged, to “help” congress approve the new drone defense budget (which is probably not a terrible idea).
Next!
Seems unlikely to me. A huge number of people would have to participate in such a conspiracy, facing the prospect of ending their careers - never mind prosecution.
Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Huge number? I bet it could be done with a dozen.
The types of military organizations that would be involved in something like this don't have to worry about prosecution. The CIA, for example, runs a global network of torture prisons, and hacked congressional computers to destroy evidence when investigated about it, got caught, lied about it, and nothing happened. (The torture prisons are still operating.)
The types of military organizations that would be involved in something like this don't have to worry about prosecution. The CIA, for example, runs a global network of torture prisons, and hacked congressional computers to destroy evidence when investigated about it, got caught, lied about it, and nothing happened. (The torture prisons are still operating.)
Dozens?
A single person could do it... if they had the time and money.
It’s easy — for the typical HN poster — to make a drone. But, it’s tedious and expensive to make several dozen of them.
A raspberry PI with a GPS module, a few bulky brushless motors, and a hefty LiPo pack and you could probably make something with an autonomous range of 100 miles. The only limiting factor is money, time, and a wife who won’t mind you wasting money and time.
A single person could do it... if they had the time and money.
It’s easy — for the typical HN poster — to make a drone. But, it’s tedious and expensive to make several dozen of them.
A raspberry PI with a GPS module, a few bulky brushless motors, and a hefty LiPo pack and you could probably make something with an autonomous range of 100 miles. The only limiting factor is money, time, and a wife who won’t mind you wasting money and time.
Sounds like something a couple of CIA operatives (plus support) could do easily, without leaving a trail.
And then the only other thing to risk might be to relay “anything in this sector is with our boys, wink wink” to one person in command locally, who will know not to engage, and who will never ask any questions.
Matter of fact, they could get away with just reading and maybe temporarily “influencing” the rules of engagement for drones, and then allowing them to be amended “in light of the incident”.
And then the only other thing to risk might be to relay “anything in this sector is with our boys, wink wink” to one person in command locally, who will know not to engage, and who will never ask any questions.
Matter of fact, they could get away with just reading and maybe temporarily “influencing” the rules of engagement for drones, and then allowing them to be amended “in light of the incident”.
Now it's the Navy and the CIA? When does the NSA get roped into this elaborate conspiracy? Get a grip.
Well the CIA isn’t technically supposed to operate on US soil, but this happened at sea, loads of people think that claim is a total joke anyway, and PSYOP is one of their specialties.
Or it could have been highly compartmentalized within the Navy[0]. Or it could have been foreigners or pranksters! I have some “grip” on all of those possibilities, and I don’t claim to know what happened.
Anyway, the possibility it was staged is not as ridiculous as you assume, even before considering precedent.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team
Or it could have been highly compartmentalized within the Navy[0]. Or it could have been foreigners or pranksters! I have some “grip” on all of those possibilities, and I don’t claim to know what happened.
Anyway, the possibility it was staged is not as ridiculous as you assume, even before considering precedent.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team
The Navy doesn't need to be in on it, all that's needed for the described conspiracy is the CIA operating some drones with sufficient range. Range isn't that hard to get if you don't need any other payload, and they can probably launch them from one of the nearby islands.
> conspiracy
What if it was a legit training exercise and the side effect is some drone scare that also helps get a budget approved.
What if it was a legit training exercise and the side effect is some drone scare that also helps get a budget approved.
I like this take. I’d place a (small) bet on it.
It sounds like these are only visible as lights. Not sure we have any real evidence that there's machinery, there.
https://wimflyc.blogspot.com/2021/03/foo-fighters.html seems like a similar phenomenon; maybe there weren't any drones in the first place.
https://wimflyc.blogspot.com/2021/03/foo-fighters.html seems like a similar phenomenon; maybe there weren't any drones in the first place.
I helped sail/transport a 32' boat down the coast of Australia years back with a friend and a professional captain/boat-transporter, it took a few weeks and we got to know the captain pretty well. He told us one time he was transporting a boat and was pretty far off the coast when he saw red lights in the distance coming towards him extremely fast. Then all of a sudden there was a car-sized vehicle hovering in front of him over the ocean...it sat there for 30 seconds or so, then accelerated away and was over the horizon in less than 10-15 seconds. The guy was kind of out-there, but I swear he wasn't making it up.
Assuming a 3 mile distant horizon, we'd be talking about a potentially autonomous hovercraft capable of Mach 1
All the Navy released are deck logs and memos. We're not seeing data from the ship's Combat Information Center, which controls the sensors. The deck log is just what the people driving the ship did, and naval tradition is to keep that brief. There's no useful data in that FOIA response.
My takeaway from this is at the end of the article where there are links to multiple other drone swarm incidents. This includes an incident at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant and an anti-ballistic missile battery in Guam. Yikes, this isn't the first time a high-value asset has been targeted by drone swarms?
I definitely heard about the nuclear plant. Might be time to put up one of those boards with pins and strings and find the connections and triangulate the source :)
It is unclear why weren't any attempts made to capture these uavs despite repeat encounters.
Do you think a trigger happy captain wouldn’t request permission to engage/capture these drones? He probably did, it was probably denied, and evidence of these requests were not leaked.
This was obviously an exercise between friendlies.
This was obviously an exercise between friendlies.
Looking at a couple of the logs it mentions that some were flying 700-1000 feet above deck, seems tough to be able to capture something that far up
Shoot and collect parts
> Shoot and collect parts
This was happening at sea, and apparently at night. The parts probably would have been blown into the ocean and sank or floated away before anyone could find them.
This was happening at sea, and apparently at night. The parts probably would have been blown into the ocean and sank or floated away before anyone could find them.
[deleted]
Should add (2019) to the title
EDIT: probably better to add "...in 2019" based on the correction below
EDIT: probably better to add "...in 2019" based on the correction below
Disagree, the events happened in 2019 but the article was published this year based on FOIA requests that were fulfilled after 2019.
Ah, my bad—you are absolutely correct.
Not sure how I missed that... guess it's time to go to bed.
I do think the headline has an urgent undertone that makes it seem like this just happened. Not sure if intentional or not
Not sure how I missed that... guess it's time to go to bed.
I do think the headline has an urgent undertone that makes it seem like this just happened. Not sure if intentional or not
Yeah, agreed that from the headline, it seems recent.
While the article does make this clear first thing, it may be worth having the title reflect this is a past event.
While the article does make this clear first thing, it may be worth having the title reflect this is a past event.
My guess is a branch of US military was permitted to fly drones near the ships to 1) Test the drone swarm tech and get some practice 2) Measure reaction time & actions taken by unsuspecting military personnel
Agreed. Maybe they just got some Lockhead Indago drones:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/indago-vtol-ua...
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/indago-vtol-ua...
> The question remains: who was operating these craft with apparent impunity, and for what purpose, and was this extremely bizarre case ever resolved?
Maybe save you a click if you were looking for any kind of resolution.
Maybe save you a click if you were looking for any kind of resolution.
fascinating read.. my first thought was that they must have been either a covert military operation to test some bleeding edge tech, or launched via submarine by an adversary
No submarine can come this close to the coast without being detected. Especially not in this area, there's huge numbers of Navy ships there 24-7 due to training, and all of them are using passive sonar all the time due to that training.
A covert operation using a drone with a big flashing light on it so that it can be identified?
Other possible theories:
- "Hacker in his garage" A highly qualified amateur who built/modded drones to play a prank or showcase his products to potential customers.
- The drones were launched from the coast by a secret Russian/Chinese military cell to test new technology and spook the US military.
- "Hacker in his garage" A highly qualified amateur who built/modded drones to play a prank or showcase his products to potential customers.
- The drones were launched from the coast by a secret Russian/Chinese military cell to test new technology and spook the US military.
> "Hacker in his garage"
I think that’s well within the bounds of possibility. I know at least 8 or 10 people who could pull this off if they tried, I’d give myself maybe a 70% chance of doing so on my own given a low-mid 5 figure budget. I’d suspect there are many many people on diydrones or rcgroups forums who could do it.
Ardupilot, gps waypoint navigation remotely reset using satphone data/telemetry channels, initially guided using public ais coords of the ships.
I’d probably go with a consumer grade fixed wing rc glider to get the range/duration required (that wouldn’t hover over the helipad, but would be much easier to get 90+ mins duration and 100+ mile range that a multi rotor). If I could get a non ais equipped boat near by I’d consider LoRa radios instead of a sat phone (which might end up leaving payment/identity/location data behind) but would have trouble getting much past 100km line of sight range. Also very low bandwidth at long range, so even sending back still images to use for setting new gps waypoints would be a challenge over LoRa.
(For the record, I’m on the other side of the planet, and was at the time of these sightings too...)
I think that’s well within the bounds of possibility. I know at least 8 or 10 people who could pull this off if they tried, I’d give myself maybe a 70% chance of doing so on my own given a low-mid 5 figure budget. I’d suspect there are many many people on diydrones or rcgroups forums who could do it.
Ardupilot, gps waypoint navigation remotely reset using satphone data/telemetry channels, initially guided using public ais coords of the ships.
I’d probably go with a consumer grade fixed wing rc glider to get the range/duration required (that wouldn’t hover over the helipad, but would be much easier to get 90+ mins duration and 100+ mile range that a multi rotor). If I could get a non ais equipped boat near by I’d consider LoRa radios instead of a sat phone (which might end up leaving payment/identity/location data behind) but would have trouble getting much past 100km line of sight range. Also very low bandwidth at long range, so even sending back still images to use for setting new gps waypoints would be a challenge over LoRa.
(For the record, I’m on the other side of the planet, and was at the time of these sightings too...)
Another possibility, that it's the same kind of aircraft that Cmd David Fravor's FA18 squadron intercepted several years ago... 'Tic Tacs'.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that these things are actually all that fast, or at least the ones popularized in Gimbal and Go-Fast. The trigonometry just doesn't work out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
Did they bother to use a scanner antenna and a spectrum analyzer? If drones, likely they would have measured some radio signals.
This is so weird me and my dad saw something really similar to this with the red flashing and then white light hovering around a ship off the NC coast a few months ago at night. We watched it go on for a while with binoculars, so strange. It was far away but could tell one was a ship not really 100% sure the other light was a drone it could’ve been another boat.
People use drones for sport fishing.
Nothing to see, move along
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Nicolas_Island
Where else are they going to test, Patuxant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Nicolas_Island
Where else are they going to test, Patuxant?
This kind of emerging technology is just so fascinating and has endless opportunity to just imagine how it's all playing out.
Thinking of how one might deploy a test drone against an adversary in a way that is undetectable seems remarkably easy these days - they could have a container fall off a cargo ship and deploy a vehicle sized drone from that after floating in a shipping lane for a week or two at a safe depth.
Thinking of how one might deploy a test drone against an adversary in a way that is undetectable seems remarkably easy these days - they could have a container fall off a cargo ship and deploy a vehicle sized drone from that after floating in a shipping lane for a week or two at a safe depth.
Undetectable you say? Hah! Just like there's someone at the Air Force sitting at a desk tracking millimeter (probably smaller?) sized space debris, I am sure the Navy has someone who geeks out about every little piece of debris in the Pacific ocean and would be well aware of a new cargo container sized piece of debris that floated in a weird location then suddenly disappeared.
Didn't the destroyer have its own drone to go up and look?
This sounds like a direct threat to the operational security of the United States Navy, and to the freedom of navigation, and eventually the National Security of the United States.
I'm surprised the Marines on board weren't authorized to shoot them out of the sky. Perhaps it's time to develop some high power EM weapons to take them out, big magnetrons are cheap, and there is a lot of electrical power available onboard.
I'm willing to help develop countermeasures.
I'm surprised the Marines on board weren't authorized to shoot them out of the sky. Perhaps it's time to develop some high power EM weapons to take them out, big magnetrons are cheap, and there is a lot of electrical power available onboard.
I'm willing to help develop countermeasures.
Perhaps starting a war with the aliens is not the best thing to do right now
So anyway, I started blasting...
However it would make a fitting sequel to COVID.
I had bet on zombies for the Dec 2020 final stage but I guess intergalactic war would have fit the bill too
As if our weapons would do anything to alien craft lmao
It's not space aliens, it's some other group of humans from another country or non-aligned organization.
Considering the amount of evidence provided, there's no way to be sure its 'some other country'. It could be US citizens, the US armed forces, or hell, an ET. Safe to not make assumptions.
What kind of odds are you willing to give me that it's actually space aliens?
There's no marines onboard a destroyer, and no one is shooting anything that hasn't shot first when you're in that area, it's full of Navy training platforms and civilians.
On the other hand if you allow drone to get to the ship, it might be too late.
Not really - you need thousands of pounds of ordinance to sink a destroyer and no small UAV is carrying that.
The UAV could be the first part of a coordinated attack... it could do something to foul the sensors on the ship, for example.
Did you see some representation of size?
Based on the flight times and 100 mile flights ~100 miles off the coast and the investigated boats in the area...they couldn't be small. At least not with current consumer battery technology. Maybe if they were launched by a sub?
There's a youtuber that has a multi-hour autonomous drone, but it's solar powered and this was at night.
There's a youtuber that has a multi-hour autonomous drone, but it's solar powered and this was at night.
Hybris electric/gas drones are commercially available these days.
https://dronelife.com/2021/03/18/skyfront-gas-electric-hybri...
That could almost had done what’s reported from land, and easily from a small boat 50 miles away from the ships (which is well over the horizon).
https://dronelife.com/2021/03/18/skyfront-gas-electric-hybri...
That could almost had done what’s reported from land, and easily from a small boat 50 miles away from the ships (which is well over the horizon).
With that attitude you'd have started real war many times during the Cold War. Just go to youtube and watch Cold War fly-bies over opposite navy ships.
Here it were international waters and no any weapons trained toward the ships - and even trained weapons isn't enough actually to start shooting.
Here it were international waters and no any weapons trained toward the ships - and even trained weapons isn't enough actually to start shooting.
Prior to 9/11, hijackers weren't resisted... tactics changed after that. Active defense is now a reasonable strategy.
During the cold war drones were huge, noisy, expensive, and had relatively short endurance. They weren't used in waves like drones can be now.
Zone denial seems like a reasonable response to today's threat environment.
During the cold war drones were huge, noisy, expensive, and had relatively short endurance. They weren't used in waves like drones can be now.
Zone denial seems like a reasonable response to today's threat environment.
To clarify, I am pretty sure they are talking about flybys by actual manned fighters.
But it's a fair point that shooting down an unmanned drone is a lot less aggressive than shooting down a manned one.
Of course, not starting a war with aliens that don't shoot seems wise.
But it's a fair point that shooting down an unmanned drone is a lot less aggressive than shooting down a manned one.
Of course, not starting a war with aliens that don't shoot seems wise.
you miss the point - it isn't Florida with the "stand your ground", it is international waters where one side's "reasonable" most probably means absolutely nothing to the other side(s). You shoot at something in your denial zone - it is an act of war, and you open yourself to reciprocation. China, for example tries to establish various zones in international waters for the reasons of its national security - the US ships and planes still sail and fly right through rightfully without giving a flying f-k.
>I'm surprised the Marines on board weren't authorized to shoot them out of the sky.
They were 1000 feet in the air. Maybe read the article first.
They were 1000 feet in the air. Maybe read the article first.
Funny little tidbit, there'a stray "lorem ipsum" on one of the images.
https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F16165352...
https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F16165352...
Anyone from https://www.dedrone.com/ able to comment?
It seems surprising that they took no action other than observing. The US Navy seems to get upset when other boats come near them, yet were tolerant of a UAV over their helipad?
It seems surprising that they took no action other than observing. The US Navy seems to get upset when other boats come near them, yet were tolerant of a UAV over their helipad?
Ball lightning, Navy gambit to get more budget, foreign UAVs, or ET UFOs. The latter two possibilities are less likely but would represent major security threats.
Perhaps USN ships need better sensors that extend to scientific observation purposes?
Perhaps USN ships need better sensors that extend to scientific observation purposes?
Wouldn't modern laser technology be suitable for destroying small drones? I know there are research prototypes being developed against jets and missiles - drones have far smaller mass and move more slowly.
This seems like the way to go to me. We certainly have lasers that could do it.
Let me understand this: in the age of smart phones and billions of cameras, there is no single photo of the event, but somehow there are top-secret log record included in the article?
Yeah right ...
It actually states in the article that the ship's SNOOPIE team was activated, so there likely is footage which isn't available via this FOI request. I'm not in the navy but I wouldn't presume guys on duty are able to take their personal mobile phone with them on deck to film things.
Make sense what you saying but in all articles of similar nature, there are always top-secret documents but never hard proof, (photo, video or similar) that could be analysed. Even when there are some photos/videos resolution is so low that it looks like it was recorded 20 years ago.
So, my default mode is just to discard any of those news as some kind of viral trash paper frenzy... to be honest over years I read so many of those, that if real aliens (or Chinese navy-seals) would land in front of me and ask me for "direction" my heart would not skip a hart beat. It is pretty much as the story 'the boy who cried wolf' after so many information, disinformation, cover up information, misinformation... it is really hard for me to think anything else then that this is yet another NSA's social experiment.
Just thought about something, you know always when foreign airplane, ship or any other vehicle invades foreign territory anywhere in the world, immediately it is in headlines. Full footage, there is even a satellite recording, everything is wide open and fully transparent. But in case of these events there is nothing or enough to be misleading. So, why to hide it from public? Maybe because it is US tech. Reason which says it would cause panic, does not add up because after pandemic, global warming and amounts of lies and fear mongering people are indifferent toward everything.
Just thought about something, you know always when foreign airplane, ship or any other vehicle invades foreign territory anywhere in the world, immediately it is in headlines. Full footage, there is even a satellite recording, everything is wide open and fully transparent. But in case of these events there is nothing or enough to be misleading. So, why to hide it from public? Maybe because it is US tech. Reason which says it would cause panic, does not add up because after pandemic, global warming and amounts of lies and fear mongering people are indifferent toward everything.
The correct acronym is FOIA
Quite similar to this...
Similar region.
Similar UAV reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeSpA3e56A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeSpA3e56A
Where is the evidence? This is just some logs of sightings by the crew on the ships. No specific information or anything of interest really other than random references to hashtag tic tac.
Someone is selling some anti-drone defence systems to the navy...
This is starting to get a similar vibe from The Expanse and those “unknown stealth aircraft”
What was the propulsion system? Are these traditional quadrocopters, or something else?
Launching rockets that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars at drones that cost almost nothing is not a solution. It's a recipe for defeat via attrition. They could have 50 cheap decoy drones for every drone carrying a payload.
Also the laser is far more scalable than rockets but still easily overwhelmed and susceptible to the same attack because it cannot distinguish between decoy drones and payload drones
Also the laser is far more scalable than rockets but still easily overwhelmed and susceptible to the same attack because it cannot distinguish between decoy drones and payload drones
The laser was targeting rockets fired by a Soviet BM-21 truck-mounted multiple rocket launcher. The rockets are used like artillery, not for targeting drones. Presumably if the laser is able to destroy 40 incoming rockets then it would be able to destroy much larger numbers of relatively slow drones.
Thanks for the correction about the rockets. But I'm not so sure that the laser solves the drone problem. Drones could be launched closer and come from every direction staying close to the ground. You could also spread them out around the laser so the laser spends most of its time transiting between decoy targets
Is this highly advanced spam or something?
I've seen the original video but the audio is clearly some sort of rental property ad
I've seen the original video but the audio is clearly some sort of rental property ad
I thought it was kind of surreal and endearing in a way.
More like an advertisement that says we could pay to have it developed (interesting choice of soundtrack)
It was the military itself doing it as a test, but they couldn't disclose that since it's a classified project.
Do you have proof of this? It could have just as easily been a rival like Russia or China.
Of course not, if there'd been proof, we would have seen a whole different article.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's interesting that these encounters keep happening off the California coast - is the naval presence there unique compared to other regions?
Big testing ground for the Navy. SD has a large naval base. If you wanted to prank/spook/spy on the USN there would be few better locations to pick from.
And, we're only going to hear of events that were seen. Even if the locations of events were random, we simply would be more capable of spotting ones that happen in that area
> is the naval presence there unique compared to other regions
Yes, the Navy operates two of the channel islands which are both relatively large. They each have a sizeable runway, plenty of radar, etc. A lot of training activities seem to occur in that area too.
Yes, the Navy operates two of the channel islands which are both relatively large. They each have a sizeable runway, plenty of radar, etc. A lot of training activities seem to occur in that area too.
Be interesting if they did that next to a Aircraft carrier, the ciws system will make mince of the drones.
Navy destroyers are equipped with Close In Weapons Systems too, you know.
The more recent DDG's, including the USS Kidd have those as well. I wonder why it wasn't used.
Would you want to fire several hundred kilos of tungsten in a random direction while you're next to the USA coast, where civilians and shipping pass by all the time?
Edit: as a reply, since I can't post faster:
CIWS, in certain modes, do indeed track a target and fire at it, which could be considered a "random direction" when considering the maneuverability of the target.
Edit: as a reply, since I can't post faster:
CIWS, in certain modes, do indeed track a target and fire at it, which could be considered a "random direction" when considering the maneuverability of the target.
I would think CIWS systems don't fire in random directions. Anyway if these were just small drones that would probably be overkill, I would think a shotgun would be sufficient.
I've wondered a lot about whether these uavs aren't more powerful than a lot of our fighter jets. I guess it's inappropriate to talk about scenarios where they could be deployed to cause great harm. But, it doesn't take much thinking to imagine the efficacy of a well placed uav, and the small difficulty it would be to conceal one of these in an adversarial country.
Huh? We’ve all been talking about predator drones for well over a decade
Another article revealing that a Turkish company has developed military "suicide" drone swarms and some opinions on how poorly equipped the US DoD is for these types of low cost drone swarms. Technology that's readily available and affordable to just about anyone with deep enough pockets, not just poor state adversaries like North Korea but also drug cartels etc.
Really concerning that with all the tax dollars spent on defense research, these types of activities can take place en masse with no real strategy for countering them