DARPA Plans to Arm Drones With Missile-Blasting Lasers

reply to post by luxordelphi


As I said repeatedly, the GPS was vulnerable. The ones that didn't crash due to mechanical failure (which have been most of them), and were brought down by someone else, had the GPS spoofed into thinking that it was somewhere else, or that the altitude for the area was different than what it was, and they flew into the ground.

That's not hacking, that's spoofing, which is completely different. It also has been the only vulnerable point in the system.

Ground stations are NOT going to be hacked. They have so many protections on them it's not funny. Not to mention they are not going in and out through the internet, like the system on Minot. They're going out through military communications channels, or through SATCOM. Good luck with getting in through either of those.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You and your semantics. Spoofing...hacking...whatever brought them to ground; the fact is they were brought down.

Not to mention they are not going in and out through the internet, like the system on Minot.

Minot, in part, was brought close to catastrophe because operators fell asleep. What do you think that was? A spell of some kind? That was a ground station that was hacked. And not through the internet. Through direct input. While the operators slept.

Oh...wait...maybe that's not hacking; it's taking over.

You're a person who uses swype. Or alleges to use swype. So you have to know about the perils of voice recognition software. Which preceded swype.

And we have not even really addressed fifth columns. Which is really where the problem lies. Bad vetting. Impossible vetting situations.

reply to post by luxordelphi


No, Hacking and Spoofing are NOT semantics. They're completely different.

Hacking:

a. Informal To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.
b. To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Spoofing:

The word "spoof" means to hoax, trick, or deceive.

www.techterms.com...

Hacking and spoofing are completely different.

As for Minot, I don't remember anything about them being "hacked", or taken over because someone was asleep. Source? Anyone that could have gotten to the computer they were supposedly asleep at, depending on where it was at and what it was, would have already been cleared to see anything on it, so there was no reason for them to do anything.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Drone hack explained: Professor details UAV hijacking

Todd Humphreys’ tale about hacking a civilian drone in front of the Department of Homeland Security has gone viral since he conducted the experiment last month.

Humphreys explains to RT that he went into the experiment expecting a real challenge by hacking the drone’s GPS with a homemade spoofer device, but along with some students, he says he “worked hard to demonstrate that it was indeed possible, and perhaps within the capability of other hackers.”

Iran 'hacks software of US spy drone'

Iran has hacked the software of an advanced American spy drone which came down its territory and has begun building its own copies of the aircraft, officials claimed.

So if setting up a false site or replacement with false software is spoofing and not hacking, my mistake. I guess it's important to get the terminology right.

Perhaps I am missing something here which you could explain but I am not understanding how remote controlled and wireless lends itself to safety. And it seems like madness to beef up a drone to the point where it can't be brought down even when it falls into undesirable hands or is subject to operator error.

And it's hard to understand how a cell phone activated device would be impervious to operator error via, for instance, swype.

Here is the story on the sleepers:

Four Air Force Officers punished for leaving nuclear blast doors open

Just five months later, three Air Force officers fell asleep at the controls of a component that contained old launch codes for nuclear ICBMs at Minot. They were immediately barred from working with classified and nuclear materials and were later discharged from the service.

So here's the headline of the future: "Remote Drone Operator Falls Asleep and Girlfriend Takes Over".

reply to post by luxordelphi


Except Minot wasn't hacked or taken over.

As for the UAV, it's not wireless and remote control as you're thinking about it. I'll explain better later when I'm not on my phone.

Of course, if they get this, one of the first users will be SOCOM, and you'll have to put "missiles" in quotes as a euphemism for "people on our list".

And, no, it's not unlawful to lase someone, you just can't do it in the eyes with the intent to blind. If the intent is to kill, that's ok. If you meant to kill them and blind them instead, that's ok too.

reply to post by Bedlam


There's a bolt on Guardian kit in testing on a KC-135. They bolt on the mounting portion, and the laser itself is removable and can be bolted on in an hour or two.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ah, but a UAV is so much more fun.

You have to wonder if they'll hire retired operators to man that program.

"Ok, guys, I have target 143 on my display, can we get two officers in here to confirm?"

"Operator four, you are clear to fire, I say again, fire, fire, fire"

"Let's see...we'll decommission his sunglasses. Lock confirmed...charging...fire"

(burst of smoke and flame)

"Target is on fire. Repeat, target's face is on fire. He is ambulating at a high rate of speed in a semi circular pattern...we are getting agitated gesticulation and arm gyration...target continues to ambulate...now in a linear pattern across the field. Re-acquiring target in right I repeat right aural region. Charging. One to the right ear. We have a through and through. Target is down. It's MIller time, I have my trojan horse on the bar, repeat, the horse is on the bar"

reply to post by Bedlam


I doubt these would be powerful enough though. These are pretty small scale, for short range work.

But that's funny there.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I doubt these would be powerful enough though. These are pretty small scale, for short range work.

But that's funny there.

You know, I just don't know. If you had a good, tight beam, you could probably fry someone up on the ground with as little as 10kW, if you had good weather and a clear shot. I don't mean burn them up to a pile of ashes, but you could, as we used to say "render them harmless".

Anything that will deflagrate a missile will cause some snappy burn injuries to a person, especially if you can follow them around with it a bit.

reply to post by Bedlam


Really though all this is doing is blinding the seeker. The missile blows itself when it loses the target. It's not actually shooting down the missile, just making it impossible to hit the target, so it either misses and blows up because it's out of fuel, or blows up because it lost the target, and thinks it's close enough to hit.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Really though all this is doing is blinding the seeker. The missile blows itself when it loses the target. It's not actually shooting down the missile, just making it impossible to hit the target, so it either misses and blows up because it's out of fuel, or blows up because it lost the target, and thinks it's close enough to hit.

Well, that's no fun at all. I was sort of hoping they were mounting that new modular ThinZag system on one. While it's faster with a full 100kW, you can deflagrate a lot of mortars, air-to-air, ground-to-air missiles, and select enemy combatants with as little as 10kW, as long as you have enough hold time.

Maybe we ought to pitch a retrofit for a ThinZag anti-personnel UAV to SORDAC. We could make ATS history.

reply to post by Bedlam


Hey, I'm in. I'll help with the flight testing, and mounting it, if you can find someone to help with the designing.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Hey, I'm in. I'll help with the flight testing, and mounting it, if you can find someone to help with the designing.

I don't know if we have to get Textron in on it or not. I'll have to see if we can get it as a unit, or if parts of it are still classified secret.

Partly I'm kidding, but a bit of me is taking this seriously. #, man, you get a default $40k for just writing a half-assed white paper on it, if they accept it. And I've won stage I grants on stupider stuff. By far.

How much room, weight capacity and electrical power can we get from a UAV? You pick. It'll be pretty dang big, and it's a power hog. Also cooling is a pain in the tukhus.

eta: we've got to write in all the goodies on the contract. Like the test phase. In the past we've managed to cadge parachute jumps and dive time out of the government in the name of realistic testing. Not sure how to do it with this. But at least we ought to get to shoot things. How do you know it'll hold up if you don't put it over a battlespace and burn up a few...things? Oh, and of course we'd have to test over a controlled space, too, so maybe UTTR or Edwards. At least. Maybe Kirtland.

reply to post by Bedlam


I don't have the most experience with this sort of thing, but I'm willing to learn, and do whatever. I'm serious, if you want to do it, I'll do what I can to help out. That would rock.

Best bet for something like that is a Global Hawk sized platform probably. If you can get me more information on the laser, I can dig into what it would fit on.

I love lasers, I almost bought one that could pop balloons and burn through tape. Everything is much cooler with lasers. Have you ever shined a laser into a crystal? it's pretty neat (with proper eye protection).

My question is this -- how is this laser powered? Is it akin to putting an amplifier in your car? Do airplanes have "alternators" like cars? I'm apologize if that was a sophomoric question.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


They have generators powered by the engine, so it's almost like an alternator.

Got to do some digging, first off. Heck, for all I know, it's already out for bid. If not, there's some research and filing to do before we proceed.

If it's not already in process as a semi-dark project, that's a good thing. I won't be able to find it in the non-line item list if it's TS or compartmentalized, but I can see it if it's just S. Unless I have a project code, and sometimes they give that away early on.

If it's virgin, and I can't see how it would be, then it's jackpot time. But you know, sometimes they don't think of crazy #. Which this is. So if it hasn't occurred to anyone yet, and no one comes by and sees this thread, we could be in business. So move this to RATS.

reply to post by Bedlam


I think your idea might have some legs to it as well. If you can pitch it as a zero collateral damage weapon, one shot one kill weapon. Getting as little power consumption as feasible to get the beam intensity required at operating altitude and keeping it miniaturized enough to fit most UAV platforms.
I think in order to maintain beam integrity over long ranges as higher altitudes go, some kind of adaptive optics could be employed to compensate for atmospheric distortion. This was done for the YAL-1 and is implemented on almost all major astronomical observatories...heck they even sell semi adaptive optic auto guiders for amateur astronomers.

P.S. I would love to help as well if you need someone who is good at putting machine parts/systems together in small packages.

Well, Zaphod, I think I was right on my first comment.

It's not just a seeker blinder. The Excalibur laser technology has a design goal of 100kW in a drone. And SORDAC is already looking at thumping the bucks down. DARPAs sales pitch for Excalibur came right out of the chute saying it was for counter-insurgency attacks in MOUT where you didn't want any collateral damage of the sort a nice missile would cause.

Ah, well. It was entertaining for a few hours, anyway.

eta: the comment was "Ya big dumbass, what did you think it was for?"

etaa: there were also some oddball comments made that I didn't catch onto until later. SOCOM used to have a COIL in an AC130 called an Advanced Tactical Laser that was pretty much for roasting people and infrastructure at a distance. Most chemical laser programs went by the wayside in 2010. I can't find the funding for Boeing's ATL. It wasn't terminated that I can tell. It just went away in 2010, right off the line item budget. But I don't see any announcement about the project being formally ended. In 2009 I see funding for 3 years (something like $30 million) for testing, then nothing. No project termination, no orders to send the aircraft to refit or the boneyard, no new funding, nothing. I don't know if it's still ongoing or has changed to HELLADS or THINZAG or it's now a giant test platform for Excalibur Senior or it's razor blades or what.