• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Flying robot attack "unstoppable": experts

Status
Not open for further replies.

_TheSaint_

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/09/060509055355.jjazoykq.html

It may sound like science fiction, but the prospect that suicide bombers and hijackers could be made redundant by flying robots is a real one, according to experts.

The technology for remote-controlled light aircraft is now highly advanced, widely available -- and, experts say, virtually unstoppable.


Models with a wingspan of five metres (16 feet), capable of carrying up to 50 kilograms (110 pounds), remain undetectable by radar.

And thanks to satellite positioning systems, they can now be programmed to hit targets some distance away with just a few metres (yards) short of pinpoint accuracy.

Security services the world over have been considering the problem for several years, but no one has yet come up with a solution.

"We are observing an increasing threat from such things as remote-controlled aircraft used as small flying bombs against soft targets," the head of the Canadian secret services, Michel Gauthier, said at a conference in Calgary recently.

According to Gauthier, "ultra-light aircraft, powered hang gliders or powered paragliders have also been purchased by terrorist groups to circumvent ground-based countermeasures."

On May 1 the US website Defensetech published an article by military technology specialist David Hambling, entitled "Terrorists' unmanned air force".

"While billions have been spent on ballistic missile defense, little attention has been given to the more imminent threat posed by unmanned air vehicles in the hands of terrorists or rogue states," writes Hambling.

Armed militant groups have already tried to use unmanned aircraft, according to a number of studies by institutions including the Center for Nonproliferation studies in Monterey, California, and the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies in Moscow.

In August 2002, for example, the Colombian military reported finding nine small remote-controlled planes at a base it had taken from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

On April 11, 2005 the Lebanese Shiite militia group, Hezbollah, flew a pilotless drone over Israeli territory, on what it called a "surveillance" mission. The Israeli military confirmed this and responded by flying warplanes over southern Lebanon.

Remote-control planes are not hard to get hold of, according to Jean-Christian Delessert, who runs a specialist model airplane shop near Geneva.

"Putting together a large-scale model is not difficult -- all you need is a few materials and a decent electronics technician," says Delessert.

In his view, "if terrorists get hold of that, it will be impossible to do anything about it. We did some tests with a friend who works at a military radar base: they never detected us... if the radar picks anything up, it thinks it is a flock of birds and automatically wipes it."

Japanese company Yamaha, meanwhile, has produced 95-kilogram (209-pound) robot helicopter that is 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) long and has a 256 cc engine.

It flies close to the ground at about 20 kilometres per hour (12 miles per hour), nothing but an incredible stroke of luck could stop it if it suddenly appeared in the sky above the White House -- and it is already on the market.

Bruce Simpson, an engineer from New Zealand, managed to produce an even more dangerous contraption in his own garage: a mini-cruise missile. He made it out of readily available materials at a cost of less than 5,000 dollars (4,000 euros).

According to Simpson's website (www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile), the New Zealand authorities forced him to shut down the project -- though only once he had already finished making the missile -- under pressure from the United States.

Eugene Miasnikov of the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies in Moscow said these kinds of threats must be taken more seriously.

"To many people UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) may seem too exotic, demanding substantial efforts and cost compared with the methods terrorists frequently use," he said. "But science and technology is developing so fast that we often fail to recognise how much the world has changed."

This is worse than IEDs. These are IED's that can get to the Objective on their own.

Suicide bombers are now officially obsolete.
 
I'm not worried, the Autobots will save us :D

Ok, semi-serious. The UAVs eh? Well, the larger ones with decent range would require a base for support and a portable operations centre the size of a trailer. The costs and logistics are prohibitive, training would take time and overall it makes for a nice target. The smaller systems such as those suggested by the article fall more along the lines of direct line of sight and that means that the operator eminates RF, which we can trace, jam or interfere with (wouldn't it be funny to redirect the vehicle back against the user?) As always, it becomes chess. When "they" bring a new threat to the field "we" develop ways to counter said threat.

IEDs piss me off and I would love to see them go the way of the Dodo, but they aren't going away anytime soon. The bombers aren't obsolete; they're cheap, easy to train and readily available. As for death from above by remote controlled UAVs? Cool, something else to shoot at. I dunno if I'll be able to draw a bead on a noisy, low flying remotely controlled helicopter bearing down on me at 20kph. I may be laughing too hard trying to hit it with small rocks. :nana:
 
While I agree countermeasures will come and will probably prevent anything "bad" from happening, I think it'll take a deadly attack or three before anyone does anything. After all, it took four consecutive attacks and several thousand deaths before we started enforcing cockpit security on large planes, so who's to say it won't take something (not quite equally) bad before we do something about it?
 
So, these can be the poor man's Tomahawk Missile or TOW.  As I have pointed out before, these things are only limited by one's imagination.  We have built airplanes, tanks, torpedoes, ICBMs, and the list is endless.  For every weapon system we dream up, someone else dreams up a counter measure or bigger weapon.  It is 'life'.  We progress.  Not all that we create is going to be weaponry, and even then some of what we develop in the 'weapons wars' are later used commercially.  Aircraft development took leaps and bounds in WW I and WW II due to the war, as did the automotive and chemical industries and then there are the advances in Medicine.  But if we keep going on this tangent, we will be off topic.
 
Enzo, I think you are thinking like a soldier and not like a terrorist.

You want to keep the weapon under control until it reaches a chosen target.  Therefore you need to monitor the weapons flight, receive targeting data, update position.  The terrorist doesn't need to worry about any of that.  In fact a degree of randomness helps the cause.  Remember that Hitler's V-1s were just launched on a heading until they ran out of gas. Arguably they cause more distress to the civilian population than the bombers of the Blitz.

For these guys all they need to do is find a load carrying system , launch and run away.  Any load carrier will do.  One that is GPS guided only increases the effectiveness.

Cheers.
 
Enzo said:
I'm not worried, the Autobots will save us :D

Ok, semi-serious. The UAVs eh? Well, the larger ones with decent range would require a base for support and a portable operations centre the size of a trailer. The costs and logistics are prohibitive, training would take time and overall it makes for a nice target. The smaller systems such as those suggested by the article fall more along the lines of direct line of sight and that means that the operator eminates RF, which we can trace, jam or interfere with (wouldn't it be funny to redirect the vehicle back against the user?) As always, it becomes chess. When "they" bring a new threat to the field "we" develop ways to counter said threat.

IEDs piss me off and I would love to see them go the way of the Dodo, but they aren't going away anytime soon. The bombers aren't obsolete; they're cheap, easy to train and readily available. As for death from above by remote controlled UAVs? Cool, something else to shoot at. I dunno if I'll be able to draw a bead on a noisy, low flying remotely controlled helicopter bearing down on me at 20kph. I may be laughing too hard trying to hit it with small rocks. :nana:

Problem is, YOU might not be there to throw rocks at it, because it might be targeting a bunch of people at Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. These won't be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll be used on civilian populations in Canada and the US.
 
_TheSaint_ said:
Problem is, YOU might not be there to throw rocks at it, because it might be targeting a bunch of people at Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. These won't be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll be used on civilian populations in Canada and the US.

Pike ?
Canucktroop ?
bbbb ?
artsy?
 
_TheSaint_ said:
Problem is, YOU might not be there to throw rocks at it, because it might be targeting a bunch of people at Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. These won't be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll be used on civilian populations in Canada and the US.

I disagree.  Really soft targets like Starbucks they wouldn't waste the resources on when they could walk in with paper bag full of C4, drop it into a garbage can and walk out again.

Where these are dangerous is hitting items civilians can't get to.  Specifically, a symbolic attack on the White House or an economic attack on one of the big Saudi Oil Refineries.


Matt.  
 
I hope there are no "rogue" nations selling these things to terrorists. Forget nukes- they're too hard to aquire.......why not just buy a bunch of Robot Planes and send them in to do the dirty work. I'm surprised we haven't seen any of these things attacking troops or civilians anywhwere yet. I guess it's because the terrorists, so far, can't afford them, or don't have the expertise to build one. How hard can it be though, with off the shelf GPS systems and computer components. These things don't have to be as advanced as the Predator, or other  US UAV's. I think all it's going to take is one major success by the terrorists to prove the utility of autmated delivery systems- then all hell breaks loose...

Here's a timeline of UAV development up to today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/uavs.html
 
I thought the point of suicide bombings wasn't the technology employed but the willingness of the operator to die and take his enemies with him.  Some sort of twisted sense of honour in other words. That said, I really doubt that even if robot bombs were employed widely we would see a disappearance of those dedicated to their cause extinguishing their own lives with man-packed explosives. Again, thinking that this might is assuming that terrorists are cowards who don't fight fair because they are somehow afraid to.  Quite the contrary, I suspect many fight "unfair" because they

a) realize it is their only chance of victory
b) feel deep inside that there is honour in coming to grips personally with their enemies, even if only to die in the process

Robots don't scare me.  People dedicated enough to their cause to want to die and take me with them certainly do, though.
 
aesop081 said:
Pike ?
Canucktroop ?
bbbb ?
artsy?


Good question...

He/She/It joined this morning and already very active
with no profile.

Usually a sign of a troll but this one hasn't screwed up yet.
But I give it time.
 
This was looked at long before 9/11 and continues to be reviewed as technology develops:  

1) Too time intensive to train operators
2) High level of skill involved to hit something by remote control
3) Small payload requires exact hit for effectiveness
4) Radio-control frequencies are easily interdicted by level of technology used by security forces.
5) Hard to conceal delivery system prior to attack (cant just hide it under your arm)
6) Limited range and hands-on guidance means guidance team has harder team escaping security zone.
7) Requires 'take-off' runway of considerable length that is highly visible and within zone of security force observation.
8 ) Highly unusual delivery method makes for harder cover story development and higher chances of detection by security forces.
9) Training requires large open areas and has a high visibility.  
10) Lack of familiarity with an unproven tactic means lack of confidence on part of operators and higher command (higher risk assessment).
11) Not able to carry a GPS guidance system AND a large enough payload - you can be on target or have a big explosion, but not both....yet.
12) Technology exists for larger UAVs and smaller GPS systems but is not commercially available...yet.
13) Military's that own UAVs will not sell them to these groups in fear of having trail easily traced back to them.  

I highlighted some of the more important factors - other reasons out there but those are enough for now.  
 
What is stopping the other side from building flying autobots that circle a given area, using sensors to pick up another flying object and attacking it with proximity fused weapon or large recoilless shotgun?

Expect to see a resurgence of quad .50cals or twin 20mm to combat this threat. 
 
What is stopping the other side from building flying autobots that circle a given area, using sensors to pick up another flying object and attacking it with proximity fused weapon or large recoilless shotgun?

What's to stop them? How about a shockingly large amount of advanced technology that even the US has trouble making work?  Do you realize how difficult building a high endurance UAV with artificial intelligence (that is what you have just described) would be working in a cave?
 
I must disagree with some of your reasons Centurion.

1) Too time intensive to train operators
Look at 911....it took many months of flight training at a school in Florida.

2) High level of skill involved to hit something by remote control.
I think flying a real plane is probably harder. They did it once they can do it again.

3) Small payload requires exact hit for effectiveness
What about chemical/ biological payloads? These could be "sprayed" from the air.

4) Requires 'take-off' runway of considerable length that is highly visible and within zone of security force observation.
5) Highly unusual delivery method makes for harder cover story development and higher chances of detection by security forces.

These both fall under the category of "What about Helos?" Look at this thing I can buy right now online. It won't have the payload but does have a camera... it's some weirdass helicopter for 100$ ......I want one!
Watch the  videos...crazy.

http://www.rctoys.com/draganflyer5tipro.php

In my opinion, well funded terrorists will at some point aquire some form of remotely operated plane to do some damage. All the arguments about what to use to shoot them down are moot, since as the original article says, these planes fly too low and are completely indetectible by current radar, which screens out small stuff like birds. We can either live in la la land or find some other air defense platform disigned to shoot down "little stuff" ...it should also be good for duck huntin'!  At sensitive events like a G-8 summit we could deploy the new air defense platform and take out any pigeons or whatever that show up.


 
I wouldn't be to quick to discount threats from all sources. They will find a way to attack and make it work. While UAV technology, cost, and all may be prohibitive at this time, does not mean that it is not possible in the very near future.

Remember before 9/11, the though of someone using a airliner as an attack veh was thought of as pure fiction (courtesy of Tom Clancey)
 
Armymedic said:
I wouldn't be to quick to discount threats from all sources. They will find a way to attack and make it work. While UAV technology, cost, and all may be prohibitive at this time, does not mean that it is not possible in the very near future.

Remember before 9/11, the though of someone using a airliner as an attack veh was thought of as pure fiction (courtesy of Tom Clancey)

I think the only reason that the terrorists haven't used em' yet, is a "failure of imagination" on their part. When it happens, and they're successful....look out....

I read in the other article I posted that...

"One scenario features a mass drone attack launched from a tanker or freighter well out in international waters"

That's a bit scary. Considering that there are already "pirates" operating from old freighter "motherships" off of Africas' coast, this wouldn't be that big of a step. Mabye the Navy should be on watch for suspicious Cargo ships approching the US and Canada. A new job for NORAD? I'm not sure they'd detect small planes approaching or think much of them, in any case. Mabye someone with expertise could tell us what the smallest thing is we can pick up on radar and decide if it's a threat.
 
Do not take my post as support for your position. I was just stating that anything possibly imaginable is practically possible.

Massive drone attacks though, are unlikely. One or two large model planes on preprogrammed computer guided paths above a large open air sports stadium dispensing a biochem weapon....possible.
 
I could have sworn I read an article some time ago which said the LTTE (aka Tamil Tigers) had employed RC model aircraft as "poor man's UAVs" before.  I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top