With Drones Over US Military Bases, Agencies Urge Congress to Pass Drone-Defense Legislation (cnn.com) 55
A series of drone sightings over U.S. military bases "has renewed concerns that the U.S. doesn't have clear government-wide policy for how to deal with unauthorized incursions that could potentially pose a national security threat," reports CNN:
"We're one year past Langley drone incursions and almost two years past the PRC spy balloon. Why don't we have a single [point of contact] who is responsible for coordination across all organizations in the government to address this?" the recently retired head of US Northern Command and NORAD, Gen. Glen VanHerck, told CNN. "Instead, everybody's pointing their fingers at each other saying it's not our responsibility...." Over a period of six days earlier this month, there were six instances of unmanned aerial systems, or drones, entering the airspace of the Marine Corps base Camp Pendleton in California, a spokesperson confirmed to CNN, adding that they posed "no threat to installation operations and no impact to air and ground operations." There have also been incidents in the last month at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey; Naval Weapons Station Earle, New Jersey; and Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. A Chinese citizen, who is a lawful permanent resident of the US, was recently arrested in connection to the California incident.
The drone incidents are "a problem that has been brewing for over a decade and we have basically failed to address it," said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Rob Spalding, who previously served as the chief China strategist for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior director for strategic planning on the National Security Council. It's unclear what specifically the drones could be doing — the intent could be anything from attempting to gather intelligence on the base or testing its defenses and response time, to gaining a better understanding of how the bases work, or they could simply be harmless hobbyists flying drones too close to restricted areas... Despite the incursions and the risk they could pose, officials say there is no coordinated policy to determine what agency leads the response to such activity, or how to determine where the drones originate.
CNN reported this week that government agencies have struggled to keep pace with the development of drones and drone technology, particularly by adversaries like China, though legislation is being discussed and the Pentagon just recently released its strategy for countering unmanned systems... The two heads of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Jack Reed and Roger Wicker, sounded the alarm in a Washington Post op-ed at the beginning of 2024 that the US "lacks adequate drone detection capability" and that agencies "lack clear lines of authority about which agency is responsible for stopping these incursions."
Military installations have the authority to protect themselves and respond to threats, but a former senior military official said that if the drone enters the airspace and subsequently leaves, determining where the drone originated from and what it was doing can be difficult. Military law enforcement typically coordinates with civilian law enforcement off base in that instance, the former official said, but are often limited in what they can do given laws that restrict intelligence collection within US borders. But sources also said the lack of ability to do more also stems at times from a failure to prioritize defense against this kind of activity within the US. The topic is "such a relatively new phenomenon that the law has not caught up and the agencies have not adapted quickly enough," [said one Senate aide familiar with discussions on drone defense and policy].
"The need for Congressional action was made clear in a joint statement this week from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigations and Federal Aviation Administration," according to the article.
"The agencies said they 'urge Congress to enact counter-UAS legislation when it reconvenes that would extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities to identify and mitigate any threat that may emerge.'"
The drone incidents are "a problem that has been brewing for over a decade and we have basically failed to address it," said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Rob Spalding, who previously served as the chief China strategist for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior director for strategic planning on the National Security Council. It's unclear what specifically the drones could be doing — the intent could be anything from attempting to gather intelligence on the base or testing its defenses and response time, to gaining a better understanding of how the bases work, or they could simply be harmless hobbyists flying drones too close to restricted areas... Despite the incursions and the risk they could pose, officials say there is no coordinated policy to determine what agency leads the response to such activity, or how to determine where the drones originate.
CNN reported this week that government agencies have struggled to keep pace with the development of drones and drone technology, particularly by adversaries like China, though legislation is being discussed and the Pentagon just recently released its strategy for countering unmanned systems... The two heads of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Jack Reed and Roger Wicker, sounded the alarm in a Washington Post op-ed at the beginning of 2024 that the US "lacks adequate drone detection capability" and that agencies "lack clear lines of authority about which agency is responsible for stopping these incursions."
Military installations have the authority to protect themselves and respond to threats, but a former senior military official said that if the drone enters the airspace and subsequently leaves, determining where the drone originated from and what it was doing can be difficult. Military law enforcement typically coordinates with civilian law enforcement off base in that instance, the former official said, but are often limited in what they can do given laws that restrict intelligence collection within US borders. But sources also said the lack of ability to do more also stems at times from a failure to prioritize defense against this kind of activity within the US. The topic is "such a relatively new phenomenon that the law has not caught up and the agencies have not adapted quickly enough," [said one Senate aide familiar with discussions on drone defense and policy].
"The need for Congressional action was made clear in a joint statement this week from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigations and Federal Aviation Administration," according to the article.
"The agencies said they 'urge Congress to enact counter-UAS legislation when it reconvenes that would extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities to identify and mitigate any threat that may emerge.'"
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you know what these objects are emitting? And which technologies are used to detect them? That would be the motive of foreign intelligence agencies. Get us to admit what we can and cannot detect. Or shoot down.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily toward whatever you're pointing at it to find said RF. Small electric ones are basically background temperature, so they don't really stand out on thermals.
As seen in Ukraine war, which is where cutting edge in small reconnaissance and attack drones is.
Re: (Score:3)
Planes at night stand out massively even on primitive thermals due to engine exhaust temperature standing out against background. There are other hot spots too, but those are most visible.
Since when that's a problem? (Score:2)
Just shoot anything flying over your bases. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullets, rockets, shrapnel, etc you shoot upwards has to come down.
It has a nasty tendency of sometimes coming down on fragile things, like people.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullets, rockets, shrapnel, etc you shoot upwards has to come down.
It has a nasty tendency of sometimes coming down on fragile things, like people.
Air defense systems like skynex [rheinmetall.com] which are recent and designed to cover drones fire explosive rounds which have very small shrapnel and cause limited or absolutely no damage on the ground even as they are very effective in the air. If they are having problems as you describe then it seems as if US airbases only have much older defensive weapons and they should be urgently purchasing something like skynex as a counter. You can't afford to only have rocket based or older systems like CRAM which need a direct h
Re: (Score:2)
> limited or absolutely no damage on the ground even as they are very effective in the air.
Two obvious questions would be "what is the failure rate of detonation" and "who cleans up the shrapnel" of which you'll need to put a lot in the air to intercept something this small and fast.
Reminder that what you're talking about is essentially miniaturized VT shells. And no, they're not very good at this sort of work as evidenced by history.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminder that what you're talking about is essentially miniaturized VT shells. And no, they're not very good at this sort of work as evidenced by history.
No it isn't. The timer is programmed by the gun before the round is fired. Neither does it make any sense to speak of ancient experiences with ancient technology involving targets that are nothing like the ones being targeted by these systems.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is intermediate tech that is less effective than VT shells, being between conventional timed fuse and actual VT shell.
And you're selling my overestimation of capabilities of this tech and noting that it would fall short still... as a dunk?
Re: (Score:2)
So this is intermediate tech that is less effective than VT shells, being between conventional timed fuse and actual VT shell.
Interesting while lacking a handle on the basics of the operation of these systems you nonetheless feel qualified to draw baseless conclusions as to their efficacy.
And you're selling my overestimation of capabilities of this tech and noting that it would fall short still... as a dunk?
In the future take a moment to read what was being said before mashing that submit button. I've made no claims as to the efficacy of these systems. All I've noted is your reasoning is trash.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullets, rockets, shrapnel, etc you shoot upwards has to come down.
It has a nasty tendency of sometimes coming down on fragile things, like people.
Does no one load rock salt shotgun shells anymore? Before the FAA made it illegal to shoot down drones I was always surprised people where shooting them down with buckshot or birdshot. Not that anyone will be hurt by falling birdshot. I've been hit by falling birdshot several times back when I used to hunt.
I don't understand why rocksalt or some other harmless biodegradable material can't be used in anti drone artillery. Making it the size of birdshot would be sufficient for quadcoptors and would be ha
Re: (Score:2)
This has been tested widely at least on Russian gun tube channels, where they tried to find something that would work for "their guys in the field on squad level". First they tested rifles. Found them useless because it's almost impossible to hit a moving drone with them. Tested machine guns. Found them unwieldy and still mostly useless unless enough warning time is provided.
And then in desperation turned to shotguns. Normal birdshot is basically useless. Not enough energy to travel the distance. Buckshot h
Re: (Score:2)
The French army uses laser for this, for instance during the Olympics. If it flies at less than 1,000 m the success rate is 100%. https://www.eurosatory.com/en/... [eurosatory.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and they also used those anti-drone rifle shaped jammers too. All those systems were in Ukraine by 2023 a latest for testing in actual live fire scenarios. That was in fact one of the main things that Ukraine supplies its Western partners. Place to test all the new weapons they're willing to send.
All anti-small drone systems failed. Every single one. There's nothing that works. The only things that work are anti LALE and MALE drone weapons, though those are horribly cost ineffective. All those laser we
NJ banned drones last week (Score:2)
because everyone respects the law and for some reason there is no more news about this.
Re: (Score:3)
drone detection (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several companies that make drone detection systems, and they use several techniques. They have multiple antennas that track the RF emissions of the drone and its controller and triangulate them. They have audio sensors and cameras that scan the sky looking for the signatures, and of course radar. So why don't military bases use one of them?
https://www.robinradar.com/res... [robinradar.com]
https://drone-detection-system... [drone-dete...system.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Because these are way behind the times. Small reconnaissance drones can be simply programmed to overfly the target on a fixed route and record everything. No emissions at all. Cameras are basically useless for tracking them, as is sound detection, as they're tiny to the point of being invisible inaudible against background unless they go low for some reason. This is what we've seen in Ukraine conflict, all these cool high tech countermeasures have been proven useless.
The only things that work are wide spect
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The thing that happens here is that the US is outclassed. They should have given Ukraine far more military aid and require getting taught everything about drone-warfare in return. But that would have required acknowledging that the US military is a dinosaur in its strategies and equipment.
Also, no amount of lawmaking will fix that problem.
Re:drone detection (Score:4, Interesting)
>They should have given Ukraine far more military aid and require getting taught everything about drone-warfare in return.
This was done. What was discovered is that drones as they are used on Ukrainian battlefields today have exactly one counter.
Don't be found.
There are no other reliable counters. Unreliable countries are wide spectrum jamming (for FPVs), and killing enemy FPV teams before they kill you. This is in fact much if not most of warfare in Ukraine today. FPV teams hunting each other. There are several accounts from both sides where FPV teams openly talk about the fact that their most important mission is to hunt and kill other side's FPV teams because that gives them some reprieve to hunt more freely until enemy's FPV team in the same AOO gets new kit.
This is why there is so little footage of any kinds of armor battles or large scale infantry warfare any more with most of what's coming out being from last big pushes from warm periods this year. Right now, most soldiers at the line of contact on both sides when coming out of their hiding places spread out to the point where distance between them is tens if not hundreds of meters. The goal is to ensure that once those in the open are inevitably found by recon or FPV drones, they can't be used to trace the rest of the attacking or defending team easily.
We're seeing military tactics completely changed by this. Tanks are no longer really used in mechanized assaults, and are instead used in fire support role at the edge of FPV range. And that is now being addressed by design of FPV-carrying longer range fixed wing drones, that are supposed to also serve as a comms hub. Ukrainians already demonstrated some prototypes of this kind flying. Infantry teams are rapidly shrinking because discovery of anyone on the team means FPV rain on the entire team. So less people per team = less casualties upon discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
That was in the last offensive during spring and very early summer, basically running on the idea of saturating FPV teams with targets and then punching through.
It worked, but losses proved to be too heavy. Current tactic is literal opposite. One infantryman with a small swarm of FPV drones for support. He moves, anyone that fires on him is shredded by the drone swarm while drone operators mark zone as "manned". If he gets discovered, he dies. But if he is undetected (which with current manning levels of Uk
Re: (Score:3)
The ones being sighted stateside are all clearly visible and easy to detect with camera system, even at night.
Re: (Score:2)
>The ones being sighted
You actually typed this out as a response to the point that small ones will not be visible.
Re: drone detection (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion isn't related to hypothetical scenarios. It concerns drones flying currency over various parts of the United States. Unless you're implying that there are more drones up there that we don't know about.
Re: (Score:2)
Two questions to judge the correct approach needed to convince you:
1. How closely are you following current development stage of aerial drones?
2. What is your level of awareness of difficulties involved in spotting modern drones of various types?
Re: (Score:2)
>> clearly visible and easy to detect with camera system, even at night
Hence the reports of drone 'sightings'. Hobbyist drones can definitely be tracked and the location of the controller identified.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the drones in question allegedly can't be tracked back to an operator. Hence the concern (or panic, depending on your point of view).
Re: (Score:2)
>> allegedly can't be tracked back to an operator
Where did you see that?
Re: (Score:2)
It may well be that there are some classes of drones that are very hard to detect, but these are drones people are seeing. "closes airspace amid drone sightings". Very possible they are ordinary hobbyist drones.
Re: (Score:2)
FPVs and recon drones mostly used in Ukraine are off the shelf DJI Mavics with custom software and attachments.
Re: (Score:2)
I think off-the-shelf drones can be tracked by the multi-sensor systems that are readily available. Reportedly there are autonomous drones in Ukraine and elsewhere which would be harder to spot, sure. But they can be detected, and it would be those that I would be worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're "tracked" by is DJI's default software literally sending telemetry of each of the drone to DJI's servers. Since control was done via machines that were linked by Starlink to the command center for command, they also fed telemetry to public database as drones flew missions.
There was even an English volunteer serving with a Ukrainian drone team that was laughing at how stupid they were early on, in that they used default software and didn't realize their drones were visible on DJI's website.
After
Re: (Score:2)
There are several companies that make drone detection systems, and they use several techniques. They have multiple antennas that track the RF emissions of the drone and its controller and triangulate them. They have audio sensors and cameras that scan the sky looking for the signatures, and of course radar. So why don't military bases use one of them?
https://www.robinradar.com/res... [robinradar.com]
https://drone-detection-system... [drone-dete...system.com]
You’re right that there are plenty of companies making drone detection systems, and the tech sounds great on paper—RF triangulation, radar, audio signatures, cameras, you name it. But the reality of deploying these systems, especially at military bases, is a bit messier. Off the top of my head, here are some of the challenges:
Signal Clutter: Picture the RF environment around a military base. It’s not some pristine, interference-free zone—it’s jam-packed with signals from civili
Re: (Score:2)
Hobby drones transmit in a narrow band of frequencies and that can definitely be filtered for. The RF signature of ordinary drone comms is not hard to recognize. There are directional dishes for audio that can scan the sky, which would eliminate most ambient noise. Same with cameras and you can employ AI for object recognition. Yes there may be more stealthy drones where these techniques might not work but lets find that out before we get all excited.
>> Imagine outfitting over 300 military installatio
Do We Really Need New Drone Legislation? (Score:3)
I am skeptical of the push for new legislation to address drone activity near sensitive installations. Military airspace is already subject to layers of regulation, including FAA and DoD rules, ADIZ protocols, and TFRs, all of which come with significant penalties for violations. The problem is not a lack of rules but rather the challenge of enforcing them effectively.
Creating additional legislation risks adding unnecessary complexity to an already dense regulatory framework. This could result in greater confusion among agencies and operators rather than providing clarity or solutions to the issues at hand.
The focus should shift toward better enforcement of existing rules and, where appropriate, the development of counter-drone strategies. However, investment in counter-drone technology must be approached with caution. Current detection systems face significant limitations, including signal interference, difficulties in detecting stealthy or autonomous drones, high costs, and the challenge of integrating these systems into existing military and civilian frameworks. Additionally, strategies that might include shooting down drones near or over civilian population centers carry inherent risks and potential for collateral damage, making such actions a last resort rather than a standard solution.
Instead of relying on technology as a catch-all solution, the path forward should involve improved inter-agency coordination, better-defined roles and responsibilities, and targeted deployment of counter-drone measures where they are most needed. Enforcement will require leveraging intelligence, operational expertise, and existing tools in ways that address the real-world challenges of drone incursions.
Piling on new rules will not fix what is fundamentally an enforcement and operational problem. By focusing on practical, actionable solutions, we stand a better chance of addressing this growing issue effectively.
Re: (Score:1)
The Social Security Administration and the National Institutes of Health created the drone problem? Who knew?
Seems to me the problem is being caused by Billy Joe Bob who thinks it is great fun scaring the easily spooked public.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this My Ah Ha Moment? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been looking at this nonsense for the past few weeks and the questions that keep coming to mind are; why have the "officials" not shutdown this Facebook rumor nonsense? More specifically, who "profits" from this ongoing drone hysteria? In other words, what's the agenda?
It's all nonsense! No one has yet shown a picture or video of a New Jersey drone. They have all been pictures and video of commercial aircraft. That and the online rantings of complete and utter fucking morons incapable of distinguishing a Boeing 737 at a distance from a "drone" at close range. "It must by China/Russia/Aliens. Clearly their malicious. Or.. or... something scary." The officials can and have determined what type of aircraft they are. They know that it is not drones. They know that there is no real threat or danger. They know exactly what these morons are looking at. But, they refuse to kill the rumors.
Why? What do they gain from the hysteria. And this may be what I've been looking for. Additional powers granted through congressional acts. More power, and tangentially, more money. Lets' face it, there is no need for additional laws or powers to deal with unauthorized aircraft of any kind over sensitive sites. "Shoot to kill" has existed for a long time. It existed before 911 and it continues to exist today. Try flying you DJI toy over anything sensitive and see how long it takes before the drone or you hit the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What do they gain from the hysteria.
Telling people who are hysterical that they are being hysterical is not a winning strategy whether you want votes or clicks.
They want you to DO SOMETHING. The only thing congress can really do is pass legislation so that's what it will do. Everyone will get a chance to vote for it and they can tell their constituents that they are on top of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
In this age of social media, you expect the "officials" can shutdown the rumors?
DoD already said what the drones are. The "public" and the Congress Rats claim they must be hiding something because the answers are not what they want to hear. And then there are people like you who claim to see some nefarious design by "officials" who somehow have this mysterious power to shut down rumors.
You seem knowledgeable. Maybe you could get on FOX as a talking head and then, I don't know, go on to lead a cabinet dept i
Re: (Score:2)
If a proper answer is provided the story is over. If it drags on then the revenue train continues.
Where are the drones (Score:2)
People have been reporting things in the air since ancient times. This is nothing new. There are no mysterious drones flying around. The drones are on the ground making these reports.
AA system tests (Score:2)
wait a second (Score:2)
... The US government has said authoritatively that although they don't know what's going on that there's nothing to worry about.... Now they're worried about it?
Was that lies before, then?