Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ...
12
20
21
22
23
LastLast
  1. #421
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    How strong do you think a jammer has to be to render a civilian drone useless? You could probably jam it with a garage door remote or a cellphone tuned to the right frequency.
    Oh, I know this one. So I actually did a lot of counter-drone operations when I was doing security for an airfield. Primary threat was local idiots flying around the sort of quadcopters that you can buy on Amazon.

    Turns out the answer is that it is really hard to jam the signals to those things, at least without screwing up a wide swath of city behind it. Yes, if you use a powerful military grade jammer, it will work, but you also sweep that across the city behind it, and fry every laptop, cell phone, and toaster oven in about 20 city blocks. Also jamming works across specific frequency ranges, so if they are using the factory default settings (Which are usually pretty close to Wi-Fi frequencies), you can target them okish. But if they changed the frequency, which is fairly easy to do, then it becomes a frustrating game of cat and mouse to figure out what to jam. Unless you do the military broadband jamming thing I referenced earlier, which has massive collateral damage.

    Individual commercial drones are extremely challenging security threat. Most major airports uses birds of prey do bring them down, using hawks for the large ones, and eagles for the airports that can afford them (Keeping an eagle and a falconer that can use them is insanely expensive). Jamming has too much collateral damage and isn't reliable. Shotguns don't have enough range, heavier weapons have to much collateral damage. So there are no easy answers here.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  2. #422
    Looks like those missiles definitely hit their marks, I'm seeing several damaged buildings/hangars.





    Seems like a lot more accuracy than what we're being told.

  3. #423
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by For_The_Horde View Post
    Looks like those missiles definitely hit their marks, I'm seeing several damaged buildings/hangars.





    Seems like a lot more accuracy than what we're being told.
    Nobody has denied the missiles hit the base (Well, some posters on here did, but no government sources). They said no casualties, because all the people were in the bunkers, not the buildings.

    However this does seem to refute the "They missed on purpose" idea. Those definitely don't count as intentional misses.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  4. #424
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Nobody has denied the missiles hit the base (Well, some posters on here did, but no government sources). They said no casualties, because all the people were in the bunkers, not the buildings.

    However this does seem to refute the "They missed on purpose" idea. Those definitely don't count as intentional misses.
    As far as I have been able to determine, only one permanent structure was hit. The hangers that were hit are really just oversized tents. Plus two hits to taxiways. While there is no word on any aircraft damaged, it would be hard to hit less important/safer targets on that base.
    Last edited by Kellhound; 2020-01-09 at 06:56 AM.
    Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
    "His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." "Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

  5. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    As far as I have been able to determine, on one permanent structure was hit. The hangers that were hit are really just oversized tents. Plus two hits to taxiways. While there is no word on any aircraft damaged, it would be hard to hit less important/safer targets on that base.
    Yeah, really wonder what they usually keep in those things.


  6. #426
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    You have no idea what a Compass Call is....

    There is more than one kind of jamming.

    A soft kill is operationally as good as a hard kill.
    I dunno man, announcing your positions like that to a recon/spotter drone seems like a bad idea. You’re doing it’s job for it.

    I may be sketchy on a compass call, but you seem pretty sketchy on how drones work.

    So to go back to the original question of whether they can be stopped with a simple RF jammer, the answer is not if it’s any more sophisticated than a £200 quadcopter, which is little more than a radio controlled aircraft. Once you give it autonomous control and pre-programmed commands, and actually have a drone, then the answer is probably no, and if it’s being operated in a way you can, are you sure you want to do that?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Nobody has denied the missiles hit the base (Well, some posters on here did, but no government sources). They said no casualties, because all the people were in the bunkers, not the buildings.

    However this does seem to refute the "They missed on purpose" idea. Those definitely don't count as intentional misses.
    There’s no “they missed on purpose” idea. It’s a “they avoided killing anyone on purpose” idea.

    I mean, the whole concept of surgical strikes that take out assets with minimal casualties has supposedly been the American ideal since the first gulf war.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by For_The_Horde View Post
    Yeah, really wonder what they usually keep in those things.

    For me it’s kind of irrelevant whether they took out a few million dollars worth of Predators and Reapers with a few thousand dollars worth of ballistics they had gathering dust or not. They seem to have shown they are certainly capable of it.

    I think that was the point the more hawkish people want to miss.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2020-01-09 at 08:01 AM.

  7. #427
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Former national security adviser Susan Rice called him out on pretty much all of those, and also, the briefing Team Trump gave the Senate was so poor even the GOP feel insulted that Trump tried that shit.
    Update: Mike Lee is not alone. Rand Paul is also insulted.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    However this does seem to refute the "They missed on purpose" idea.
    I'm nowhere near as familiar with military firepower and its capabilities as @Skroe is, but I'm getting an eerie parallel between this and Trump's much-self-celebrated pothole creation on a Syrian air base. "Missed on purpose" could mean "missed killing people on purpose"

    Or, yeah, Iran could just be lying.

    No-one is above the law.

  8. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    You have no argument so you derail the conversation to a different topic, nice.
    You have no response to my argument so you try to deflect lol. I'll take that as a concession of defeat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  9. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Nobody has denied the missiles hit the base (Well, some posters on here did, but no government sources). They said no casualties, because all the people were in the bunkers, not the buildings.

    However this does seem to refute the "They missed on purpose" idea. Those definitely don't count as intentional misses.
    Your credibility on this issue is somewhat dented by being the type of cunt who stands guard over proxy forces that rape kids.

  10. #430
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    Have you ever been on the US side? When you have comments like this regarding 9/11 attacks on the US:
    I have never been on any country's side in any serious sense. That would be stupid, countries are not people, they're cynical alignments of the short term, poorly thought out interests of certain wealthy people. They're pretty much all evil, insofar as they exist at all, it's just a question of degree.

    Honestly my opinion on 9/11 has changed over time. I used to think the US was a corrupt country run by plutocrats, enabled by a public that's at least 50% either brain dead or evil, which exercised nothing but cynical self-interest on the world stage. It was supposed to be a beacon for democracy and freedom, but in reality it was the opposite.

    That was pre-Bush Administration and pre-Trump. I now realise I had severely overestimated it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Fgalipios View Post
    Your credibility on this issue is somewhat dented by being the type of cunt who stands guard over proxy forces that rape kids.
    I mean, how would you know? You literally created your account today.

  12. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    I mean, how would you know? You literally created your account today.
    "Hi my names Orbitus, I like to deflect criticism from gut-wrenchingly stupid US militarists who enable paedophiles with tangential deflection. I'm a great human being"

  13. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by Fgalipios View Post
    "Hi my names Orbitus, I like to deflect criticism from gut-wrenchingly stupid US militarists who enable paedophiles with tangential deflection. I'm a great human being"
    And thanks for playing, whatever account you had before, is going to have a longer time off the forums.

  14. #434
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by For_The_Horde View Post
    Yeah, really wonder what they usually keep in those things.
    Nah, those were maintenance hangers for the helicopters you see on the flight line next to them. The Drone squadron would have its own hangers and flight line.

    Anyway, of the strikes we see in that picture, only the one on those hangers seems to be precise, and maybe the one on the ECP. Shooting ballistic missiles into hangers has a very good chance of killing someone, so the "Not aiming to kill people" doesn't really work. If you are trying to damage an airfield without killing people you hit the runways and taxiways, you don't hit buildings where people live and work.

    So either they were precise, and the US was very fortunate that our early warning system worked, and we got everyone in bunkers, or that particular shot was rather lucky. My guess is somewhere in the middle, that the missiles were accurate enough to hit the populated part of the base, but not accurate enough to hit specific buildings with any precision (Hence the 3, possibly 4 hits in the first picture that don't seem to have hit anything important).
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  15. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Oh, I know this one. So I actually did a lot of counter-drone operations when I was doing security for an airfield. Primary threat was local idiots flying around the sort of quadcopters that you can buy on Amazon.

    Turns out the answer is that it is really hard to jam the signals to those things, at least without screwing up a wide swath of city behind it. Yes, if you use a powerful military grade jammer, it will work, but you also sweep that across the city behind it, and fry every laptop, cell phone, and toaster oven in about 20 city blocks. Also jamming works across specific frequency ranges, so if they are using the factory default settings (Which are usually pretty close to Wi-Fi frequencies), you can target them okish. But if they changed the frequency, which is fairly easy to do, then it becomes a frustrating game of cat and mouse to figure out what to jam. Unless you do the military broadband jamming thing I referenced earlier, which has massive collateral damage.

    Individual commercial drones are extremely challenging security threat. Most major airports uses birds of prey do bring them down, using hawks for the large ones, and eagles for the airports that can afford them (Keeping an eagle and a falconer that can use them is insanely expensive). Jamming has too much collateral damage and isn't reliable. Shotguns don't have enough range, heavier weapons have to much collateral damage. So there are no easy answers here.
    Am I retarded? By "hawks" and "eagles" do you mean birds trained to take down drones? Cause if so that is fucking epic. I want to see video.

  16. #436
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Am I retarded? By "hawks" and "eagles" do you mean birds trained to take down drones? Cause if so that is fucking epic. I want to see video.
    There are loads of videos. But those aren’t drones; they’re not autonomous. They have cheap fly-by-wire systems that let idiots control them without crashing instantly, nothing more.

    There’s a world of difference between those, the survey drones I use (which are autonomous) and military drones armed with Hellfire missiles which are mostly autonomous aside from asking for authorisation to kill people.

  17. #437
    Hey @Thekri you ever do anything involving that gorgon stare drone??

  18. #438
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Am I retarded? By "hawks" and "eagles" do you mean birds trained to take down drones? Cause if so that is fucking epic. I want to see video.
    Yeah, that is exactly what I mean. Look it up on YouTube, plenty of examples.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    There are loads of videos. But those aren’t drones; they’re not autonomous. They have cheap fly-by-wire systems that let idiots control them without crashing instantly, nothing more.

    There’s a world of difference between those, the survey drones I use (which are autonomous) and military drones armed with Hellfire missiles which are mostly autonomous aside from asking for authorisation to kill people.
    Well yes and no. Military drones are not any more autonomous then the off the shelf ones, and I am really not sure where you got that idea. They are piloted like any other aircraft, except the pilot sits on the ground, not in the air.

    As far as taking those down with birds, military UAVs (They don't call them drones) come in pretty much every size, from this:

    To this:

    To This:

    To this:


    Clearly no bird of prey is going to handle the last two unless it one of those Eagles from LOTR. But all four are completely piloted, none of them are autonomous in any way. Yes, if the connection to ground is broken they can return and land (crash) on their own, but none of those fly on their own. I have worked with all four of those, and I have flown the first two personally.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    Hey @Thekri you ever do anything involving that gorgon stare drone??
    Gorgon Stare is a sensor system, not a drone. It can be mounted on a range of drones, or on conventional aircraft, or on Aerostats. I have worked with several sensor packages, but I can't really discuss which ones or what they do. It is also worth noting I was a tactical commander, not a sensors guy, so I got intel from them and signed for the property, I didn't directly operate the bigger stuff. I did play with the smaller stuff, but it was literally just that, playing around with it, I had soldiers that did it full time.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  19. #439
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Well yes and no. Military drones are not any more autonomous then the off the shelf ones, and I am really not sure where you got that idea. They are piloted like any other aircraft, except the pilot sits on the ground, not in the air.

    As far as taking those down with birds, military UAVs (They don't call them drones) come in pretty much every size, from this:

    Clearly no bird of prey is going to handle the last two unless it one of those Eagles from LOTR. But all four are completely piloted, none of them are autonomous in any way. Yes, if the connection to ground is broken they can return and land (crash) on their own, but none of those fly on their own. I have worked with all four of those, and I have flown the first two personally.
    You don't just slap them on auto-pilot until the fun happens?

    The drones I use have 3 flight modes, 'manual', which they're basically incapable of flight under, because they're in no way aerodynamic and a human simply doesn't have the fine control to make up for that. 'Assisted', which is what most off-the-shelf drones fly under, which is the fly-by-wire system where the computer does most of the work keeping it airborne, you just point it where you want it to go. Lastly there's automatic, where it just flies on the pre-programmed route (usually a grid pattern over a specified area), and carries out specified commands (take pictures typically, but it can also deposit a sensor payload for atmospheric or marine surveys).

    I had presumed military drones, given the 99% boredom factor of flying, would take full advantage of autonomous capabilities, while manual intervention would only be used for that 1%. "Piloting" the thing I use amounts to making sure it doesn't have a mid-air collision with an air ambulance.

  20. #440
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    You don't just slap them on auto-pilot until the fun happens?

    The drones I use have 3 flight modes, 'manual', which they're basically incapable of flight under, because they're in no way aerodynamic and a human simply doesn't have the fine control to make up for that. 'Assisted', which is what most off-the-shelf drones fly under, which is the fly-by-wire system where the computer does most of the work keeping it airborne, you just point it where you want it to go. Lastly there's automatic, where it just flies on the pre-programmed route (usually a grid pattern over a specified area), and carries out specified commands (take pictures typically, but it can also deposit a sensor payload for atmospheric or marine surveys).

    I had presumed military drones, given the 99% boredom factor of flying, would take full advantage of autonomous capabilities, while manual intervention would only be used for that 1%. "Piloting" the thing I use amounts to making sure it doesn't have a mid-air collision with an air ambulance.
    Yeah, that is fairly accurate. Assisted would be the most common method of control for the big ones, but that is really no different then the way airliners fly. Pilots on big long range routes spend very little time "Flying" the plane either, and the same holds true for the large UAVs. However, just like planes, they have a full time pilot that watches and monitors every second it is in flight, hence it is never truly autonomous unless it loses control. Yes, you can set waypoints and the craft will fly there, but it has no capabilities to choose its own waypoints or flight paths.

    The smaller ones fly pretty much exactly the same a civilian ones. The big ones fly exactly like jets, the cockpit is just on the ground.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •