Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

blogs.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#21

Post by codeduck »

flyinglizard wrote: post #18
codeduck wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lasers would be more effective. 1W and above lasers are readily available on the open market, and output more than enough power to fuse or burn out any optics that are not shielded.

Lasers are slow to impact (unless using an obscene amount of power) and require precise tracking of the target over time (because they're slow).

Conversely, it is far easier to hit a moving target with a laser than it is to hit a moving target with a projectile. With a projectile, you have to aim where the target is projected to be, whereas with a laser you aim where it is now.

CIWS systems and fighter cannon are gatling guns precisely because the probability of any single round hitting a small, moving target is low.

If all you need to do is overload the optical circuits of a drone, a 1W laser is sufficient. Whether you kill the drone by incinerating it in midair or kill it by causing it to crash due to loss of orientation, the result is the same.

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#22

Post by hga »

codeduck wrote: post #17
TeMPOraL wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including eyeballs. Using high-power lasers in crowded area seems even more dangerous than bullets - the latter at least don't reflect off surfaces.

No, but they follow ballistic trajectories and can ricochet. A laser is at least predictable, and given that most drones would fly above ground level for visibility, it would take a very unlucky reflection to injure someone on the ground. A bullet is going to come down somewhere.

And we're likely talking about fairly low angles, i.e. less than 45 degrees up from horizontal. Straight up is fairly safe because air resistance slows the bullet on its way down. Less than 45 degrees, it's going to come down hard a long distance away.

Shotguns are another possible approach, but I'm pretty sure the shot size required would be big enough to cause harm to more than people's eyes. And for this sort of thing civilian shotguns would have an effective range of maybe 50 yards max, so it would be a CIWS.

The US Navy is moving from the 20mm Vulcan Gatling gun based Phalanx to a missile based CIWS ... that might be the most discriminating system after a laser, but still very problematic, you would have issues with the operators being very hesitant to set them to firing because there would likely be civilian casualties, and if it just turned out to be a paparazzi or otherwise non-dangerous drone, they'd get crucified.... And neither an effective laser nor an effective kinetic/explosive CIWS would be cheap.

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#23

Post by gambiting »

jason46 wrote: post #20

Really, the Honeybee helicopter is an Air Force drone?? I had one of those 4-5 years ago and was lucky to keep it in the air for 30 seconds. Its the heli in the article with a purple tailboom and training-gear. I was eating somewhere that had CNN on TV and they were discussing the use of rockets to take out civilian drones. Not which part of that scenario is more dangerous. I'm not sure this is sensationalism with am…

I honestly thought that was Lama V3 without a canopy. These have been available for years, and yeah, controlling one is a huge feat, the battery life is around 10 minutes and they can lift absolutely nothing. It's a toy essentially. I used to be really interested in R/C helicopters years ago, but it is(or used to be) a very expensive hobby. Usually you spend few hundred dollars on a helicopter only to crash it on the very first day(it's just inevitable) and then you just keep on spending money on parts. It's most definitely not a "drone" like the quadrocopters are, not any more than R/C electric cars are.

Edit: that's a lama V3 if you were wondering: http://www.dx.com/p/e-sky-lama-v3-r-c-helicopter-1166

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#24

Post by hga »

codeduck wrote: post #21
flyinglizard wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lasers are slow to impact (unless using an obscene amount of power) and require precise tracking of the target over time (because they're slow).

Conversely, it is far easier to hit a moving target with a laser than it is to hit a moving target with a projectile. With a projectile, you have to aim where the target is projected to be, whereas with a laser you aim where it is now. CIWS systems and fighter cannon are gatling guns precisely because the probability of any single round hitting a small, moving target is low. If all you need to do is overload the opti…

A lot of CIWS systems are missle based: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Missile... And the US and Germany are moving from Gatling gun based ones to a "Rolling Airframe Missile" that as I read it is self-guided once fired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missi... Needless to say, using blast fragmentation warheads near crowds is sub-optimal.

This really sounds like a job for Death Rays, err, the laser finally getting a serious workout as a kill mechanism.

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#25

Post by codeduck »

hga wrote: post #24
codeduck wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, it is far easier to hit a moving target with a laser than it is to hit a moving target with a projectile. With a projectile, you have to aim where the target is projected to be, whereas with a laser you aim where it is now. CIWS systems and fighter cannon are gatling guns precisely because the probability of any single round hitting a small, moving target is low. If all you need to do is overload the opti…

A lot of CIWS systems are missle based: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Missile... And the US and Germany are moving from Gatling gun based ones to a "Rolling Airframe Missile" that as I read it is self-guided once fired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missi... Needless to say, using blast fragmentation warheads near crowds is sub-optimal. This really sounds like a job for…

Or hunter-killer drones that can close in and fire some sort of directed fragmentation / shaped charge warhead? That might be a viable alternative, especially once 3d fabrication reaches an acceptable maturity.

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#28

Post by pjc50 »

Doesn't even require explosives. It's more like the laser pointer threat to aircraft; all it needs is for someone to fly a reasonably solid drone into a jet engine on takeoff to achieve a major air disaster. This has come close to happening by accident at least once (drone near Heathrow).

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#29

Post by robin_reala »

pjc50 wrote: post #28

Doesn't even require explosives. It's more like the laser pointer threat to aircraft; all it needs is for someone to fly a reasonably solid drone into a jet engine on takeoff to achieve a major air disaster. This has come close to happening by accident at least once (drone near Heathrow).

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701 and http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30446136 for more info on that near-miss.

Re: Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down

#30

Post by guscost »

Not to get all libertarian, but this reminds me of the gun control debate. What this person seems to be most worried about (a drone attack) would necessarily be the work of a criminal. But what this person seems to be endorsing (a law restricting civilian drone use) would mostly limit the freedom of those who follow the law. It's very silly and a bit disappointing.
Post reply on HN