Preventing Terrorist mini-Drone Attacks

a reply to: Sovaka

What evidence can you offer to back up your assertion? I offer the countless articles in public domain describing growing concern among law makers.

You're absolutely mistaken. What's the point of terrorism? Create terror. To promote some ideal or is politically motivated.

If 9/11 had not been covered by any news media, it would have affected several thousand. Instead, it caught the world's attention. Turning all eyes to Osama Bin Laden.

If they flew those planes into bridges, for instance, instead of the towers, it would have killed hundreds (instead of thousands) and had much shock value. It wouldn't have been as "terrifying."

These people rarely act in strategic interests.

All past attacks are examples..

9/11 - towers vs military strategic assets, power plant, etc
Tokyo gas subway - Civi transit vs military strategic assets
London..
France..
Spain..
Boston..

Among countless others.

All target civilians. I can lead you to the "why" but you must answer it yourself?

What good does any of it do if it doesn't strike the average person as fear?

a reply to: Sovaka

I don't disagree with you Sov. I agree, it would be very likely. My post isn't exclusive to civ targets. I only used that single example.

The example was to illustrate a concept. Not to limit the discussion to it.

JB

a reply to: JBurns

Non of those events strike fear in me.

I will agree that all these events are events of terrorism.
However there is no proof of who perpetrated this acts than the word of one Government body.

What evidence do I need to provide? What assertion am I suppose to be backing up?

a reply to: JBurns

As am I just pointing out the futility of such concerns and lost sleep.

Anything mobile can be used as a delivery system. Hell... RC cars would be very effective.

a reply to: Sovaka

I agree Sov. As far as the real orchestrators? Who knows.

This can apply to drone threat from any source. Including a hypothetical OWG or anything else for that matter.

a reply to: JBurns

Yes... Some countries have proved they can bring down UAVs.

In terms of the concern of stopping Drones of any kind... They all need information on where to go.
True they can be preprogrammed but they still need positional information.
You can block GPS signals along with other signals quite easily... Scarily so.

In terms of putting down a Drone, that is easy also.
A simple camera system attached to a targeting/tracking computer will allow the user to target any Drone.
Attach then any weapon system capable of reaching the Drone at distances required.

a reply to: Sovaka

Thank you for the awesome information

Do you put much stock in the newer laser systems?

Thanks for the info

This may seem simple, but what about perimeter nets? Or perhaps even a drone with a net to scoop up hostiles?

any of that viable?

The newer laser systems are quite impressive... However they rely on power and a lot of it.
Not something you can easily hide out on the battle field, not very mobile and their reliance on electricity makes them very vulnerable to being disabled.

Nets I don't think would be effective at all... consider range of rockets, bullets or even shrapnel from mounted IEDs.

Your best bet would be high caliber rifles that have a decent distance to them.

If you consider your adversary and their capabilities, you can eliminate some of the variables.
If you are fighting gorilla terrorists without much funding that are using home made or store bought UAV/Quads, you could hijack the signal quite easily or overpower their signal and cause it to either crash, go into hover mode or return home mode.
They could also be shot down quite easy.
Else, if you are fighting someone that is well funded and has decent UAV equipment, then your task is a lot harder.

Some UAVs use infrared/heat signature tracking... All you need to block that is to stand behind some glass.

You just have to figure out who your potential enemy is and what they potentially have to use against you.
Tailor your defense to their weaknesses and you have a good chance of beating them.

a reply to: JBurns

Preventing Terrorist mini-Drone Attacks.... When you say terrosists do you mean pty, ltd? Surely you don't mean g, g, go, go .gov.......sorry, I just cant go there!

So the tanker is doing 55mph.

How fast can drones go and still have decent range?

P

a reply to: JBurns

I can only think of ways to counter the counters to a drone attack sadly.

If you were to hit a LPG tanker with a IED drone, it would be enough to level 10 city blocks in every direction.
And then if you were to hit 2 out of every 3 first responders, it would be a literal nightmare.

P.S The only reason a real terrorist attack has not happened yet in the US or in other places is because the ones who would or could do those attacks get prevented at the last second. All that it would take for a dedicated military veteran to shut down the East Coast is mind blowing.

a reply to: pheonix358

It is likely they would do it during gridlock conditions. Or on stationary LP tanks. IMO!

a reply to: thisguy27

Wow! This truly IS mind blowing. I mean, I knew it be more than a little "pop" but had no idea it could destroy so much!

Its a shame, but every single inch of highway is vulnerable.

You have to think layers of defence, the NSA monitoring email and internet access would get a red light when a member if say a dubious religious belief searches bomb making and drone there would (and probably has been) a knock on that persons door.

You are not really going to be able to make 50 IEDs without getting someone suspicious.

And then the logistics, you would better with a bomb in a bag and chain it to the LPG tanker, something that could have been done for a number of years.

Back in days of the IRA they tried to mortar Downing Street!

Even if you managed to make an IED which could be carried by a drone, it's not going to be more effective than a grenade, so some miscreant could just throw a grenade into a football game stand.

I don't the threat is that great yet, but I do envisage sentinel robots with shotguns and sensors on the White House, imaging a flight of ducks flying across the lawns when two automatic shotgun wielding sentinel systems pick them up on their sensors and fire at them!!

Who posted that video where Google hacked mobile phones and DVD lasers to fight malaria?? It's that on steroids I'm thinking.

a reply to: Forensick

The problem with detection lays in the stupidity of the attacker.

If they use stealth browsing techniques, and do all the bomb-tech development on their own, all the spying in the world won't top it.

Also, a homemade IED using ETN as the main charge will produce an explosion 1.6:1 in relation to TNT. I won't go into details, but its trivial to make. Even a small 30 lb charge will produce a 48lb TNT equivalent blast.


I do concede that these droneless conventional attacks are easier, but the drones eliminate early,detection.

a reply to: JBurns

With 50 of those together, it creates a 2400lb charge. WOW!

That's a 1 ton weapon! Smallest end of tactical nuke yields (I believe, may be mistaken)

Just verified my math.

Yes, 30lb @ re: 1.6 x 50 units = 2400lb yield

Carry weight is only 1500lb

I underestimated their combined power.

What if they carried 50lbs of chem agent?

A mini version of Vigilant Eagle, of course.

Or a really good sporting clay shooter. I volunteer to use my Browning Citori in defense of any sensitive installation for $200 an hour, minimum fee of $2,000.

A jammer in a pringles can works well when aimed.

As far as military goes they now have them laser weapons.

Just look at isreals iron dome.