ISIS Is Using Exploding Consumer Drones To Kill Enemy Fighters (theverge.com) 221
According to The New York Times, the Islamic State is using small consumer drones rigged with explosions to fight Kurdish forces in Iraq. As a result, American commanders in Iraq have issued a warning to forces fighting ISIS to treat any type of small flying aircraft as potential explosive devices. The Verge reports: The small, commercially available drone was shot down in Northern Iraq and taken back to an outpost, the Times writes. But during disassembly, the drone exploded, killing the two fighters. Le Monde reports that two members of French forces were also injured by the explosion. The technique used by ISIS in the attack may have been a simple one -- ultimately only combining two widely available pieces of tech -- but videos available online have purportedly shown other recent instances of drones used as explosives, suggesting the move may be one we see more of in the future.
I think there was a comic villain who did this (Score:2)
The Aviator or something. He was stopped by The Flash when trying to fly a remote controlled plane full of dynamite into Central City Hal.
This is why Europeans aren't in ISIS (Score:4, Funny)
The Aviator or something. He was stopped by The Flash when trying to fly a remote controlled plane full of dynamite into Central City Hal.
Just as they are ready to blow it up, the drone would say to the operator: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".
Re:I think there was a comic villain who did this (Score:4, Informative)
I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool).
It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight.
I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.
Re: I think there was a comic villain who did this (Score:2)
The original grand theft auto had a mission where you have a remote control car filled with explosives too
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, the GTA mission where you piloted an RC helicopter to plant explosives on a building site...
It was done in WW2 (Score:4, Informative)
I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.
It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: It was done in WW2 (Score:5, Informative)
One of them was the most world-changing drone so far.
Re:It was done in WW2 (Score:5, Informative)
It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets.
Joe Kennedy (JFK's and RFK's older brother) was killed while piloting one of these planes when it prematurely detonated. Joe was considered the high achiever of the family, and his father (also named Joe) intended his son to pursue a political career after the war. It was only after Joe's death than Joe Senior put his effort, influence, and fortune behind John instead.
Re:It was done in WW2 (Score:4, Informative)
The Germans had remote controlled weapons in WW2, the 'Mistel' being the most famous. It was intended mainly as an anti-ship weapon to be used against Allied shipping mainly in the English Channel and North Sea.
The Mistel weapons that actually saw deployment and use consisted of either the Focke-Wulf FW-190 A-8 or F-8 model or Bf-109 F-4 model single-engine fighter (stripped of weapons and loaded with control equipment) attached by explosive bolts atop a twin-engine Junkers Ju-88 A-4 or G-1 model bomber modified for control-by-wire and loaded with a specially-designed, shaped-charge warhead weighing close to two tons.
Control inputs to the released Ju-88 by the pilot in the fighter aircraft were transmitted by a set of very thin and long wires. The weapon proved not to be very effective as accuracy was an issue. The pilot must simultaneously fly his own aircraft (usually under heavy AAA fire) and guide the Ju-88 visually from his aircraft while staying within the range the control wires allow, which would be an extremely difficult task even for a seasoned pilot who is not under fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Germans also used the 'Goliath' wire-controlled mobile mine on a set of small tracks in both electric and gasoline-powered versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
It looks more like the sort of inane nonsense daesh like to boast about: "Look how incredibly impressive and deadly we are, also, it's cool to fly a killer drone".
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
It looks more like the sort of inane nonsense daesh like to boast about: "Look how incredibly impressive and deadly we are, also, it's cool to fly a killer drone".
Is it? A few well placed drones rigged with a half a block of C4 and some nails flown into the enemies machine gun positions just before an attack sounds to me like a good way to ensure the success of a subsequent infantry attack. Welcome to the infantry warfare of the future where your chances of survival diminish rapidly without some form of automated air defence to take out enemy drone swarms.
Re:It was done in WW2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that they don't have drone "swarms", they have isolated drones with very limited payload capacity. Daesh opens up battles with VBIEDs, where they can deliver tonnes of explosives into enemy troop formations, not a kilogram or two. Trucks are a lot more abundant in Syria than drones as well.
That said, I think it's easy to underestimate people because they're "jihadis". On the western side, JaF (islamist coalition, both anti-Assad and anti-Daesh) members not only use drones but have also been experimenting with remote controlled robotic gun platforms. For example, here's the Sham R3 [t.co]. Despite the consumer-hardware aspects (note the playstation controller to operate it), it seems surprisingly well made - multiaxis, very smooth action, good rotation rate but still accurate positioning, able to popup and retract for cover, etc. It's unlikely that things like that will somehow turn the war for them, but they are legitimate weapons development programs.
Re: (Score:2)
And if we limit ourselves to remote control, don't forget the Fritz X or Hs 239 anti-ship guided bombs, or the Hs 117 joystick operated radio controlled SAM/AAM on the german side
Or the us Azon anti-shipping guided bomb, which was developed after the Fritz X and Hs 239
Re: (Score:3)
The Germans had remote controlled weapons in WW2, the 'Mistel' being the most famous. It was intended mainly as an anti-ship weapon to be used against Allied shipping mainly in the English Channel and North Sea.
The Mistel weapons that actually saw deployment and use consisted of either the Focke-Wulf FW-190 A-8 or F-8 model or Bf-109 F-4 model single-engine fighter (stripped of weapons and loaded with control equipment) attached by explosive bolts atop a twin-engine Junkers Ju-88 A-4 or G-1 model bomber modified for control-by-wire and loaded with a specially-designed, shaped-charge warhead weighing close to two tons.
Control inputs to the released Ju-88 by the pilot in the fighter aircraft were transmitted by a set of very thin and long wires. The weapon proved not to be very effective as accuracy was an issue. The pilot must simultaneously fly his own aircraft (usually under heavy AAA fire) and guide the Ju-88 visually from his aircraft while staying within the range the control wires allow, which would be an extremely difficult task even for a seasoned pilot who is not under fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Germans also used the 'Goliath' wire-controlled mobile mine on a set of small tracks in both electric and gasoline-powered versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
Strat
The Nazi Germans also had glide bombs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Some of the Henschel bombs hand TV guidance and there was a B&V model under development that was radar homing.
The Allies had Glide bombs too most prominent being the American 'Aeronca' GB series and the Azon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
However, the fun really started during WWI
It was done in 415 BC (Score:3)
Fire ships were used in the Athenian Sicilian Expedition, and otherwise through ancient times and the age of sail:
The rest [of the Athenian force] the enemy tried to burn by means of an old merchantman which they filled with faggots and pine-wood, set on fire and let drift down the wind which blew full on the Athenians. The Athenians, however, alarmed for their ships, contrived means for stopping it and putting it out, and checking the flames and the nearer approach of the merchantman, thus escaped the danger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ship [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.
I remember seeing the idea in a crime/detective drama or two in the late 70s or early 80s, using R/C airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think there was a comic villain who did this
You're thinking of the Dallas police department.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But that is a remote controlled plane, not a drone. There is a difference... I am not sure what it is, but there seems to be one. Because Remote Controlled Airplanes were a fun hobby for aircraft enthusiasts. While drones is an obsession for people with malicious purposes, which needs a lot of registration and regulations.
Only surprise is that it has taken so long (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like it would be dead simple to include as payload some kind of plastic explosives into a drone, and quickly delivery it to an otherwise unreachable target.. if a drone is moving fast and erratically enough, how could you even shoot it down? And in a city, would you even be able to try shooting it down?
You have to figure the army already has some kind of anti-drone nets they don't want to talk about yet...
Re: (Score:2)
if a drone is moving fast and erratically enough, how could you even shoot it down?
Shotgun, hunting loads for duck, geese. Maybe we'll see some long barreled shotguns being issued to troops. Or maybe 40mm rounds for M203s, they have buckshot rounds, they would just need some large bird shot rounds?
Not going to be very effective (Score:2)
We have read about drones being taken out by shotguns but they have a lot less spread than you think, and the more the spread the quicker they lose effect.
Re:Not going to be very effective (Score:5, Informative)
We have read about drones being taken out by shotguns but they have a lot less spread than you think, and the more the spread the quicker they lose effect.
I'm quite familiar with the spread from skeet shooting. The fast part too, but not the changing course part. However actual hunters seem to manage that at thirty-something yards, and its not like the military is lacking in guys who have shot a large bird or two.
FWIW, during WW2 the gunners for the bomber crews started their training by shooting skeet. However in round two of training they shot skeet while standing in the beds of moving trucks, shooting at a moving target while in motion themselves.
I would not be surprised if designing the right load is more of a problem than training a sufficient number of soldiers.
Re: Not going to be very effective (Score:2)
30 yards is about the range of a hand grenade explosion, that is simply not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
30 yards is about the range of a hand grenade explosion, that is simply not enough.
US frag grenades have a lethal range of 5 meters and a wounding range of 15 meters.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they are offensive grenades, so they can't have a lethal range that overlaps with the throwing range. Defensive grenades have far higher ranges because they are supposed to be thrown from behind a cover.
This is the most widespread defensive grenade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
25 meters lethal range.
Re: (Score:3)
The attackers could send several drones from different angles, and program in a series of flight waypoints that take them between structures in the target area as cover so they can't be engaged until it's too late.
The attackers could hide the drones on rooftops or other unattended places in an urban area before the attack. Maybe inside a disguised container with a solar panel on it or something. (the solar panel would keep the drone's battery and a cell phone used for communication charged)
Sort of darkly
Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long (Score:5, Informative)
Its economics. A consumer drone costs $1000, compared to RPG grenades which were selling for $100, but now $500 according to the CSM:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World... [csmonitor.com]
As the war drags on, and munitions prices rise, alternatives become more attractive.
how could you even shoot it down? And in a city, would you even be able to try shooting it down?
Shotgun. And seriously? Afraid of disturbing the peace in Aleppo?
More Anaheim than Aleppo (Score:2)
Shotgun.
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you. You certainly don't understand much about the correlation between range and shot spread anyway....
Afraid of disturbing the peace in Aleppo?
You aren't really understanding where most of the upcoming attacks will take place.
Re: (Score:2)
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you.
Have you ever flown a drone? They don't just home in on a hidden target like in the movies. And if the target is in the open, you are much better off with the RPG.
Re: (Score:2)
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you.
Have you ever flown a drone? They don't just home in on a hidden target like in the movies. And if the target is in the open, you are much better off with the RPG.
If the drone is sort of an aerial claymore mine then precise targeting is not quite required.
Re: (Score:3)
The high end models have autopilots, cameras, and laser/ultrasonic sensors to avoid collisions. So it's within the state of the art to build a custom drone that uses off the shelf face recognition to pursue a specific person.
Well, ish. Yeah I know, in reality the person would turn away from the drone and it would lose lock, from a distance the camera wouldn't have enough resolution, reflections off window glass or rain would mess it up, etc etc etc. I'm trying to say that a movie like seeking quadcopter
Re: (Score:2)
Shotgun.
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you. You certainly don't understand much about the correlation between range and shot spread anyway....
Hunters routinely knock large birds (duck, geese) out of the sky at thirty-something yards with shotguns.
Re: (Score:3)
Despite what the New York Times editors may have told you, Aleppo is not where Islamic State operates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's Australian slang for an Ayrab immigrant.
Re: (Score:3)
How does ISIS even get such equipment? Apparently _somebody_ is _still_ delivering high-tech toys into that part of the world...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only surprise is that it has taken so long (Score:4, Funny)
Well, technically they were just ordering books. Blame Amazon and their drone delivery service...
Re: (Score:2)
And shooting it down in a city accomplishes little if your enemy only wants it to explode SOMEWHERE.
Re: (Score:3)
The esteemed Mr. Butthead seems to be referencing the law California passed last year against using paparazzi drones to spy on celebrities, which was indeed sponsored by Kevin de León and signed into law by Jerry Brown. Though the quote is of course fabricated.
innovative (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I almost misread it as "using consumer phones" and was really impressed that they were arming the drones with Samsung Galaxy Note 7s to explode on demand.
It's very convenient. In the old days you had to wire an explosive to the ringer so that it would blow up when you call it. Now, you just have to call it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now. Don't exaggerate. That (probably) won't blow a Samsung phone. You'd have to share a link to a power hungry game so the victim's phone draws enough current to set off the battery.
Re:innovative (Score:3, Funny)
Aww a Samsung employee is butthurt.
Rumor has it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would not fly in Ukraine (Score:4, Informative)
When Ukrainian forces try to use consumer-grade drones in their fight against Russian invaders, the devices are often intercepted by Russia's sophisticated radio-electronic warfare units. They are good enough to fool even American military equipment on occasion [businessinsider.com].
Had Russia really been fighting ISIS in Syria, they would've sent the same technology (and personnel) there.
Re: (Score:2)
That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.
But for Putin, a fascist dictator, military is what he can do. And, in power for over 16 years already, he had much longer to learn.
Putin's plan is to eliminate all other anti-Assad forces in Syria — an
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he'll ask the world to choose between Assad and Daesh. Rather, he thinks the U.S. and the Kurds and the Iraqis will nail Daesh...with that spoiled twat Erdogan running around with his bloomers on fire claiming it was all due to Turkey. Erdogan figures he'll be leader of the Sunnis in that area after Daesh goes away. Putin is cuddling up to Erdogan because he realizes he's pissed off the Sunnis by siding with Iran and their Shi'ite lapdogs in Syria and Lebanon. Putin figures he'll muddy the opp
Re: (Score:2)
its neither well known nor true.
this is no different than when when you insisted we were doing nothing about ISIS, even though at the time of that comment we had been bombing them for over a year.
you want Occam's razor? ok: you're a troll who revels in his ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, US logistics is a lot more complicated and expensive than Russian. As a friend of mine and former GDR soldier said "Never ever go to war with Russia. Russians are nuts! The Russian soldier needs three things to fight until the death: A loaf of bread, a side of bacon and a direction."
Re: (Score:2)
The contortions the American Right go to to defend a fascist (yes, he is) dictator like Putin show where their true sympathies lie.
The contortions of the American Left for refusing to denounce Islamofascism show where their true sympathies lie.
Re: (Score:2)
And Right still correlates with Stupid.
I am not, and never have been, part of the American Left.
Now go recite Trump talking points at your friends, Polly.
Next up (Score:5, Interesting)
Next up is self driving cars full of explosives. One of the things that always fascinates me about these middle eastern terrorist organizations is that they are pretty smart about adapting to technology but, the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology. It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things that always fascinates me about these middle eastern terrorist organizations is that they are pretty smart about adapting to technology but, the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology. It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"
Uh, you do realize there was a time when Islamic scholars were the best in the world and Europe was in the Dark Ages? They're not Amish, they're not against technology they're against many of the freedoms we have. So was Soviet Russia, they still invented Sputnik and freaked out the US. China isn't exactly a backwater hellhole either, neither is Saudi Arabia despite their ultra-conservative Wahhabism. Now obviously Daesh are revolutionaries and their goal is to fight and win, they need soldiers and martyrs
Re:Math, medicine and science (Score:5, Insightful)
... but the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology ...
Except in the fields of math, medicine and science ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]...
Yeah, that was before they went all theocratic. It's been a sandy shitstorm ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they seem to have learned nothing from their "studies" other than bomb making and religious nonsense.
I think you will find that it was not Muslims who first started bomb-making. (Well, the Chinese probably began it, but they mostly used their pyrotechnics for celebration). It was European nations and the USA that first mass-produced high explosives for the express purpose of killing as many people as possible. Indeed, they actually went so far as to define civilisation as the possession and use of guns, bombs and warships.
What goes around, comes around.
Re: (Score:2)
With the notable exception of the self proclaimed "caliph" Al-Baghdadi, they're mostly all dead now.
Yeah, we've been hearing that for a good thirty years now - about various terrorist groups. How do you explain that, as the years go back, there are more terrorists, more terrorist groups, and more terrorist victims?
"For months we have been making triumphant retreats before a demoralised enemy who is advancing in utter disorder". - "Wasp", Eric Frank Russell
Re: (Score:2)
This would solve the drone trespassing questions (Score:4, Insightful)
If they did a few of those exploding drones here, we would finally have a quick and definite answer to how to deal with trespassing drones.
So which way does this go? (Score:3)
Robotics on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it.
I mean look at that show BattleBots on ABC. And these weaponized remote control 'bots' had rules about what sorts of weaponry was allowed, weight limits.
Cool show by the way.
But my question goes something like this: Does the evolution of robotics in warfare, does it lead to using robotics to kill human enemies, or does it evolve to where we start using robotic warfare in a mutual type thing and take humans completely out of it? I mean look at the US aerial drones, we've taken the human partially out of this robotic form of warfare. The pilot is in no danger of harm, and is becoming less and less needed as AI gets better to the point we going to be able to say, punch in coordinates and time and tell our drone to launch a missile at that coordinate and at that time.
I wonder how long until we get to something like A Taste of Armageddon [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Robotics on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it.
Why? That's like saying nuclear weapons on the battlefield was a given once our tech started to support it. But, thankfully, more rational heads have prevailed and they are not commonplace on the battlefield. I actually think that drones are just as dangerous on the battlefield as nuclear weapons launched from missile silos. The "boom" isn't as terrifying to see but, the effect is the same on a smaller scale: Armchair warfare. War without risk of causalities to both sides isn't war. In fact, it's bas
Top Geek Myths (Score:2)
(1) Colonization/living on other planets
(2) Uploading brains from bodies to computers
(3) War with robots implying no human deaths
(4) Technology giving the masses a life of leisure
Re: #3 -- People don't submit to perceived tyranny because their material stuff got destroyed; rather, the opposite.
Sooo.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're doing what virtually any military is doing, but on the cheap?
Re: (Score:2)
Not cheap. Too expensive compared to the alternatives. It's an overpriced terror weapon or at best a special ops / assassination weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Payload? (Score:2)
Not seeing how that can do much damage, out side of the fear factor.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never owned, much less flown a drone. But I get the impression they just might be able to carry 2 lbs payload. So, say 1 lb low energy explosive (cuz they can't get C4 and such), and 1 lb bbs. Not seeing how that can do much damage, out side of the fear factor.
The whole point of terrorism *is* the fear factor. All someone has to do is pull this stunt on a large mass of people, say a stadium during a sports event, and you will see the US go collectively crazy. If we really had terrorism (hint, we don't) then this would have been done already.
Regarding how little real damage is done, recall that every month cars kill as many people as 9/11 did. Moreover every year illegals kill that many US citizens between murders and alcohol related car crashes. In the US w
Re: Payload? (Score:3, Insightful)
Recall also that every month guns kill nearly as many people as 9/11 did.
Re: (Score:2)
One of these could carry a dreaded Galaxy Note 7. This would flatly violate the Geneva Convention, but ISIS loves weapons that do that.
Re:Payload? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never owned, much less flown a drone. But I get the impression they just might be able to carry 2 lbs payload.
A sub-$200 homebuilt 450-size quadcopter which weighs ~700g using a 4S battery pack can have a takeoff weight of around 2 kilos. So you could carry a bit more than a 2lb payload, but not much. However, the price/performance ratio as a terror weapon is staggering. I built my SK450 for $120 including the radio. We're talking about a GPS-guided delivery system for around a hundred dollars each, since you can reuse one TX over and over. The six channel RX is only ten bucks. The radio is forty. Or if you get fancy, you might spend eighty. IF you spend more than $13 on the frame, you can get the weight down quite a bit.
Not seeing how that can do much damage, out side of the fear factor.
The fear factor is the whole point of terrorism. This is a cheap and relatively non-traceable means of carrying it out, which is why I'm always surprised it isn't happening a lot more. Glad, but surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent down before he gives anybody any ideas. :(
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you can somehow trace it, manpower isn't really the big problem of terrorism. Lives are cheap. And expendable.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can get access to a drone, they can either :
1. Order the right chemicals for high grade explosives and synthesize them. You know that ANFO is high explosive, right? Any idiot with the 2 ingredients can make some. I _think_ the fertilizer has gotten hard to come by but I can't say for sure.
2. Extract high grade plastic explosive from other munitions in a war zone. Artillery shells, mines, RPG warheads - whatever they can get their hands on.
1 lb is a hand grenade. And it could probably be molde
can't have nice things... (Score:3)
Just wait and see what they do with self-driving trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait and see what they do with self-driving trucks.
At the beginning of the autonomous-vehicle era, there were a few (FBI? CIA?) guys warning about "but they could easily be used for terrorist activities", but they all went away -- I suspect they were "sushed" to death.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is what happens when they run out of people willing to sacrifice their one and only life for Allah.
In some way this could be a "good" thing. It shows that they've lost enough numbers and fanatics that suicide attacks aren't as attractive as before. It wasn't that long ago we could read about them using children and the mentally handicapped to carry their suicide weapons. I suspect that this practice ended right quick as it proved very unpopular. These people may be depraved lunatics but it seems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, this was inevitable. ISIS, for all its propaganda, was nothing more than the Sunni kicked out of Bagdad, and they wanted it back.
Propaganda only works for so long. Beyond a certain point you have exhausted your pool of volunteers who don't look at what exactly they're fighting for, and at that point your terror-based propaganda starts working against you.
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS is "essence of Saudi", leaking out of the Kingdom and spreading slowly across other people's lands to convert them all to Wahhabism (or kill them). Think it through, and you' see that ISIS is just a microcosm of Saudi Arabia. The obvious differences are having a caliph instead of a king, and having no fixed borders. Both great advantages when you are in the conquest'n'conversion business.
Re: (Score:2)
You bought into the propaganda. For heavens sake, think! What is the name of ISIS' putative leader? al-Baghdadi: "The Man from Baghdad".
Actual example (Score:2)
Looks like they are just using regular airplane frames, this is skywalker x8 about 200 bucks. About 1/100 of a US drone probably
https://sputniknews.com/world/... [sputniknews.com]
I knew a girl named Isis... (Score:2)
next ar to air drones (Score:2)
COTS drones, perhaps modified, to take on attack drones or helicopters. Basically a poor man's guided missile.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno man. Helicopters/attack drones have immense aircraft performance, driven by gas turbine engines. Battery powered drones don't have anywhere close to the power/weight and they also are always about to run out of battery. Maybe a hovering helicopter could be hit but attack drones orbit at 10,000+ feet and you're not going to hit a moving helicopter.
Also, 2 lbs worth of warhead is marginal for destroying an attack helicopter. You could do it maybe but only if the detonation were in exactly the righ
Flying bird drones (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for someone to make flying bird drones and then launch them against the whitehouse. If you make a flock of them, they could do some serious damage, or take out the helilcopter. I don't see a good way we could defend against such an attack.
Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
So, they figured out how to tape a grenade to a quadracopter?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but how to pull the pin once over the target.
You make it sound trivial but the implications are bigger than the technology employed. I was in the US Army and the tactics taught in basic military training did not include looking for quadcopters with a grenade attached. This is something new that, according to the article at least, the smart people that are supposed to see things like this coming did not foresee. What is worse is that there is no easy fix.
I recall a story from WWII of the US
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen battle but I know people that have. What is not typical battle gear is a shotgun and trying to shoot down a small drone with a M-4 or M-16 rifle would seem more that just difficult. Not to mention trying to shoot down a drone with a rifle that has an effective range of over a mile does seem like something that might not be safe, even in a war zone, to attempt.
A typical infantry squad in an urban environment will have one of perhaps four soldiers with what they call a "master key". A maste
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh.... no. There's been talk of this for decades.
Perhaps but let's think about this. Radio controlled aircraft have been used certainly since WWII. Putting in cameras and TV transmitters for a first person view for piloting was experimented with then, perhaps even used successfully. These were converted light bombers where the controls had to be operated by a trained pilot. One could argue that the pilots would have to be exceptionally skilled since they'd be flying from a different aircraft that was trailing and flying from what could be seen through
probably a LiPo battery explosion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sand or a special fire extinguisher is to be used, but even experienced RC pilots make this error.
I have always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
...why this wasn't more widely used, specially by the US. It's the logical development from the "big drone bomb". A swarm of small drones with cameras and explosives locate the enemy, approach it, stick to it, and explode. You don't need a big charge for that, as you are sticking to the enemy. The enemy can blow up a couple of the drones, but you have tens in each operation. No civilian casualties, no risk to your own troops. You force the enemy to get out of sight where it cannot maneuver. You make thousands of the things and they go always ahead of the troops, to minimize risk. It seems such a no-brainer that the only thing I can think of, is that the developed armies are waiting to have good counter-measures for them before deploying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tech to do this at scale is just a few years old. The key piece that was missing is you need cheap sensors and cheap processors able to accurately recognize people. Probably an IR sensor, a camera, and machine vision on FPGAs/custom chips running neural nets.
That's 2015 technology. That is, before 2015, it existed but sucked ass and was too expensive.
And so maybe in 2025 the military procurement process will have the first acceptable prototypes. But yeah it's a great idea, I'm imagining some kind of
Rigged with explosions? (Score:2)
They should rig it with explosives instead, I bet they would have a much better outcome.
Blowback's a bitch - coming to the USA soon (Score:2)
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap". - Galatians 6:7
Misleading (Score:2)
I'm not sure "booby trapping a drone so it blows up if captured" is precisely the same as "attacking" someone with said drone?