Author Topic: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots and Balloons  (Read 126118 times)

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #100 on: December 12, 2015, 09:04:20 AM »
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/12/drone-strikes-are-creating-hatred-towards-america-will-last-generations/124327/?oref=d-river

From the article:

"... in the wake of the ISIL-linked terrorist attacks in Paris, four whistleblowers in the United States Air Force wrote an open letter to the Obama Administration calling for an end to drone strikes. The authors, all of whom had operational experience with drone strikes, wrote that such attacks 'fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like Isis, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool.' They say that the killing of innocent civilians by American drones is one of most 'devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.'"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #101 on: December 12, 2015, 10:31:11 AM »
So, the obvious question is presented:

What then to do instead about the Jihadis who are the target of the strikes?  I'm guessing invading again would be even less popular , , ,

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2015, 09:56:16 AM »
Great to see Bigdog stop in!  Some thoughts on this:

They are whistleblowers in terms of protection for criticizing policy, but it sound to me like they are 4 people entitled to an opinion.  Having operational experience in the drone program would not necessarily make them knowledgeable on motivation for terror and joining ISIS.  That said, that viewpoint seems valid.

Bombing from an unmanned aerial vehicle, to the bombed, is quite similar to bombed by a pilot bombing mission.  Yes I can see the difference in perception.  It appears cowardly that we want to protect our own loss of life, but that is a worthy interest IMOttt.

Our rules of engagement and other circumstances cause most of these bombing missions to not drop strike any targets.  I think we go to great lengths to protect civilian loss of life, in the context that this is war that they declared on us.  

ISIS and al Qaida leaders and terrorists kill in war and then hide among these civilians.  Which side is endangering the civilians?  Them.  WHo gets blamed?  Us.  Israel knows how this works.

One alternative is not attack and then wait for them to end their grievance against us.  Efficacy aside, we can measure the political power of that in Rand Paul's candidacy.  Even Bernie says attack and destroy them.  I doubt he would but that is beside the point.

The worst part is that we seem to be faking a war effort with our drone strikes.  By having a half effort going to defeat them, they are surviving it and able to use it as said, to generate more enthusiasm for their effort.  What we did in other war efforts was probably far more brutal, but it was part of a commitment to winning and therefore it had an ending to it.  

On the political side, the newly elected Nobel winning President seemed unlikely to continue the drone strikes, yet he did.  Some of us wondered what the outrage would have been had that been a Republican Commander in chief the last 7 years.  Now it seems that Obama used this method of limited warfare for his entire term only to get it banned before we really try to defeat this enemy.

To Crafty's question:  Obviously there is a ground component necessary to win when the free world decides to get serious.  I believe there is a great urgency as they are literally breeding terrorists in their rape and pillage warfare.  This reported effect strengthens the argument to act urgently and decisively, in my view. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 01:56:21 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #104 on: January 16, 2016, 10:13:05 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Amazing views
« Reply #108 on: February 08, 2016, 08:55:21 AM »

https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" data-mce-href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891" data-mce-style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891

Beautiful, but OTOH it looks like we are headed for a world where one can be on camera everywhere all the time.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-police-used-robot-bomb-kill-ambush-suspect-mayor-n605896

First time using an explosive device, but I believe that bots armed with firearms have been used before, though I can't cite a case off the top of my head.

DDF

  • Guest
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-police-used-robot-bomb-kill-ambush-suspect-mayor-n605896

First time using an explosive device, but I believe that bots armed with firearms have been used before, though I can't cite a case off the top of my head.

I think you're right.

It just occurred to me as to how bad people will defend against bots and explosives.... it's actually pretty simple.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #118 on: August 10, 2016, 02:44:27 PM »
 :-o :-o :-o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 30, 2016, 05:23:25 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
The big flaw in the new regs
« Reply #120 on: August 31, 2016, 06:52:59 AM »
The FAA vs. the Future
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 08:07 AM PDT
The new FAA rules (part 107) for the commercial use of drones are now in force..   Let me summarize them for you in a single picture:
 
The FAA rules (needed) are not only years late, they contain a major flaw.
It's a flaw so large, it's similar to regulating cars with the rules used for horse drawn carriages.   You can see this flaw in the rules they are proposing:
   Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS.
   A person operating a small UAS must either hold a remote pilot airman certificate with a small UAS rating or be under the direct supervision of a person who does hold a remote pilot certificate (remote pilot in command).
   No person may act as a remote pilot in command or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time.
See the flaw yet?
The flaw is that the FAA's commercial drones require a pilot at the controls.  A pilot!   
Really? 
The fact is, as a professional pilot, I can tell you categorically that drones don't need a pilot.  Not inside the aircraft or on the ground with a controller.  They can fly on their own. 
You can see this in how they developed.  Drones only became a disruptive technology the moment that low cost computer chips exceeded the intellectual capacity of insects in 2011.  They didn't become disruptive due improvements in the batteries, motors, and materials used to build them.  These new chips make drones smart enough to do everything insects (flies, bees, etc.) do.  That means they don't need pilots to:
   Stabilize themselves.
   Take-off, land, and navigate.
   Accomplish complex mission tasks.
As you can see, drones only become truly disruptive when they don't have pilots at all.  Yet, the FAA is regulating them in a way that forces drones to have pilots.
Let me put this in terms of work.  Drones without pilots make the following things possible (none of which are possible with pilots at the controls):
   Tireless.  Accomplish tasks 24x7x365. 
   Scalable.  Billions of drones can be used at the same time.
   Costless.  The cost per minute for drone services would drop to almost nothing. 
If these capabilities are unleashed, it's possible to do for drones what the Web/Internet did for networking. 
What is needed is a ruleset that makes Dronenet possible, not a system designed for commercial dilettantes. 

DDF

  • Guest
Indiana First in Legalizing Armed Police Drones
« Reply #121 on: September 08, 2016, 12:09:58 PM »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

One thing I found troubling, "However, the state's police union amended the Bill, limiting the ban to only lethal weapons..."

Since when do police unions have the power to legislate? That's news to me.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana First in Legalizing Armed Police Drones
« Reply #122 on: September 08, 2016, 04:44:03 PM »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

One thing I found troubling, "However, the state's police union amended the Bill, limiting the ban to only lethal weapons..."

Since when do police unions have the power to legislate? That's news to me.

Probably poorly written. It probably means that the police union lobbied to have the bill amended, and was successful.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Indiana First in Legalizing Armed Police Drones
« Reply #123 on: September 08, 2016, 09:32:51 PM »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

One thing I found troubling, "However, the state's police union amended the Bill, limiting the ban to only lethal weapons..."

Since when do police unions have the power to legislate? That's news to me.

Probably poorly written. It probably means that the police union lobbied to have the bill amended, and was successful.

I think you're correct in terms of the bill. It still sets a precedent. The part that I take issue with, is Clinton (or anyone that doesn't believe in freedom), having access to better equipment, that is "too" effective... myself for example. I'm kind of a totalitarian guy, and if I was ruler, you can bet, I would be heavy handed, no two ways about it.

There is an almost virtual absence of any of the big five 1%er clubs here in Mexico, or any other international crime organizations, other than people that are native to Mexico. Why? We have tons of drugs, heroin, meth, marijuana; yet, they won't step foot here. They won't even come and visit. It's because law enforcement here (combined with the cartels' brutality), isn't what it is in other places. We are militarized, and in fact, work directly with the military on patrol, using the same weapons, because it's effective, but brutal.

I don't think it is in the interest of freedom to just open the gates on something, because it works. Freedom and human rights, and anyone interested in them, get lost permanently. I believe the use of drones, both as stated in the article, and the use of the bot in Texas, are the wrong way to go if you believe in freedom, and we've known each other here for years you and I. You already know what I think of BLM trash. I'd have them hung in the streets. It does bring an interesting point though... where do we draw the line between effective law enforcement, and freedom?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 07:03:51 AM by DDF »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Cognitive Dominance
« Reply #124 on: September 12, 2016, 10:30:21 AM »
Cognitive Dominance
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 08:46 AM PDT
I'll get some down and dirty insurgent thinking up tomorrow. 

In the meantime, here's some of my thinking on a strategic concept that could direct the development of autonomous robotics.  It's called cognitive dominance. 

Cognitive dominance is the ability to make more and better decisions than the competition through the use of autonomous robotics.  This scenario, written in pentagon speak, applies some of the ideas I outlined earlier.   
_______

The war started when a peer competitor’s African client state invaded a weaker neighbor.  The peer competitor had been investing heavily in this client state over the last decade in order to gain exclusive access to a massive tract of increasingly rare, arable land.  To expand this precious resource, the client state (with the peer competitor’s backing) invaded a neighboring country to seize its arable acreage.  This aggression created a massive humanitarian crisis, sending tens of millions of refugees north towards the safety of the European Union.  The global response to this aggression was immediate and clear, but the demands to withdraw went unheeded. 

To overcome this impasse, the US issued a stern call to the client state to withdraw and to back it up, US military forces were sent to to the region.  This move prompted the peer competitor to decry US intervention in the “internal affairs” of Africa and that US forces would not be permitted within 1,000 nautical miles of the affected region.  To back this declaration up, the peer activated a massive A2/AD defense system it had been building in the client state over the last decade.   With this move, the situation became a direct threat to US and global security.  Simply, if this provocation was allowed to stand, Africa and much of the rest of the world would be quickly divided into areas of control, defined by the effective range of A2/AD systems.  To prevent this outcome, a combined US led Joint Task Force was assembled to remove the peer competitor’s A2/AD system from the region and force the client state to return to it’s pre-war borders. 

This was the first major war since rapid advances in RAS inspired a revolution in military affairs transformed the US military.  The fruits of this transformation were seen in the first days of the war when the Joint Force opened up its first front in the war with RAS platforms and weapons systems already inside inside the opponent’s territory and formations.  In fact, much of this mix of cyber and robotic weapon systems had already penetrated the opponent years ago.  These cyber side weapons had been built to slowly traverse the Internet on their own looking for target systems to disable when hostilities began.  On the robotic side, there were long term underwater vehicles screwed in the sandy muck of the client state’s harbor, a critical pathway for the peer competitors long supply chain.  Other robotic weapons systems were entrenched in the landscape in and around the peer’s installations.

These prepositioned systems had been gathering detailed information on the peer country’s order of battle in the client state for many years.  In fact, some of these prepositioned systems were cognitively adept enough to actively retrieve [and analyze on the spot] the detailed information most needed by the Joint Force Commander.  This information provided a critical part of the “big data” in the Joint Cloud that Joint Force autonomous systems used to construct detailed physical, organizational, and systemic models of the opponent.  These models made it possible for the Joint Task Force commander to run the millions of simulated engagements needed to develop successful methods of attack and uncover the nasty surprises that could put the mission in jeopardy. 

Based on this earlier work, the first major assault of the war was designed to stress the peer’s A2/AD system in order to gather intelligence on its operation, deplete its resources, and [if possible] reinforce the Joint Force’s prepositioned forces with new capabilities.  The assault was composed of RAS swarms of smart air, land and sea platforms set to a high degree of variable autonomy.  Given the risk of the mission, the human teams teamed with the swarms were stationed beyond the edge of the battle area.  The RAS swarms were trained to deceive, jam, and confuse the active sensor network, on land and in space, the opposition’s defense systems relied upon for strike guidance.  This worked.  The defense system was lit up like a Christmas tree and fired multiple salvos of hypersonic missiles at the Joint Force assault.  However, when these missiles reentered, they were unable to find the ships and aircraft they were expected to destroy.  The second wave sent by the defense system was composed of thousands of low cost RAS platforms packed to the brim with lightning fast PGMs.  The RAS platforms, manufactured in large volume over the last two decades, were expected to close on targets and overwhelm them with superior mass.

As these forces closed, it became clear that this wasn’t going to be a fair fight.  The Joint Force personnel at the edge of the effective battlespace were not surprised to see that the cloud-based training system they used to train their RAS swarms up until the last few days had successfully exploited the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the peer’s A2/AD system.  These swarms were able to systematically confuse, jam, outmaneuver, evade, and destroy the much more numerous RAS platforms of the opponent due to the far superior situational awareness, adaptability, and training of the traditionally developed systems deployed against them.  The swarms that did make it through did run into a surprise when the anti-air mobile laser used RAS based cognitive capabilities to knock out a dozen Joint Force drones before it was taken out of action.  Fortunately, the peer’s employment of RAS platforms that were cognitively dangerous, was limited to this this mobile laser.  This allowed the surviving drones to successfully reinforce the prepositioned assets before departing for recovery.

One the second day, the Joint Force Commander decided, based on the high degree of success so far, to accelerate the battle plan and takedown the entire A2/AD system without delay. The takedown assault began with an attack by hypersonic MIRVed missiles launched by F-35s in the north and converted Aegis cruisers at the edge of the peer’s defensive envelope.  These missiles released mesh networked MIRVs with the cognitive capability to rapidly evaluate their local situation and adopt the appropriate tactics during the handful of seconds available in the reentry phase.  To their credit, the MIRVs worked as expected, and they were able to take out the mobile RAS lasers that had been so problematic the day before.   Simultaneous with this, the forward deployed RAS forces sprang into action.  Cyber weapons forced the systems they had penetrated into critical collapse and the RAS UUVs in client state’s harbor blew up two peer munitions transports, crippling resupply efforts.  In few short hours, the entire defense grid, with tens of thousands of PGMs still unused, was down and Air Force and Navy continuous monitoring by flights of man/machine teams went into action to ensure it stayed dark.
The moment the grid went down, the third and final phase of the operation was launched.  This phase leveraged the automation of the US military’s logistics system to rapidly stage a ground assault force to secure the area.  Largely automated, this system was able to move men and material at and construct forward bases at an unprecedented pace.  It was so fast, in fact, the Army and the Marines were ready to stage their assaults within a few weeks of the success over the defense grid.  The men on the assault teams were armed with RAS weapons and able to find, identify, track, and engage multiple threats simultaneously.  They were teamed with RAS attack dogs and RAS mules serving as the support base for the swarm of RAS drones constantly gathering information for the team. 

The Army teams moving overland and Marine teams arriving by amphibious assault [in and around the harbor] traveled rapidly within self-driving RAS vehicles.  Since these vehicles, and the drones above them, were all using decentralized movement protocols, thousands of robotics vehicles were able to maintain high speed forward advance without congestion.   Mesh networks connected these ground assault teams with the reinforced prepositioned forces, the combat overwatch above, and each other.  The ground assault’s RAS driven vehicles rapidly converged on the defended points identified by the prepositioned forces.  Despite some hard fought engagement and a few attempted ambushes, the ground assault was over quickly.  It was later determined that that due to the rapidity of the assaults, the peer competitor was completely unprepared for a ground assault. 

Cognitive dominance achieved, the Joint Force Commander accepted the surrender of the enemy commander.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 04:19:19 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #129 on: January 08, 2017, 09:28:01 AM »
Konrad Lorenz was very eloquent about how technology that enables killing from a distance makes it hard for the victor from seeing the defeated as real and by so doing enabled bypassing limiting behaviors.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #130 on: January 08, 2017, 11:43:37 AM »
Konrad Lorenz was very eloquent about how technology that enables killing from a distance makes it hard for the victor from seeing the defeated as real and by so doing enabled bypassing limiting behaviors.

I'm cool with that.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #131 on: January 08, 2017, 01:07:35 PM »
 :lol:javascript:void(0);

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #132 on: January 08, 2017, 01:32:17 PM »
I would note that if one were to examine the historical record of genocides, humans are pretty good at overcome limiting factors of violent behavior.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #133 on: January 08, 2017, 03:29:04 PM »
Indeed.  Lorenz was quite clear on the limitations of the mechanisms in this regard.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Four drone counters
« Reply #137 on: February 22, 2017, 11:10:44 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Drones/UAV Circular Runways
« Reply #138 on: April 26, 2017, 09:00:03 AM »
I had the chance this weekend to test drive the latest Tesla in 'self drive' mode.  I'm not for self drive cars but the technology is amazing.  Obviously, jumbo jets have this mode too.  Connecting precise navigation with precise instrumentation and precise controls makes all kinds of things possible, like landing a plane at the point along a circular runway where wind direction and other factors are optimized.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39643292


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #140 on: May 25, 2017, 08:42:25 AM »
Big implications!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #142 on: June 19, 2017, 01:00:32 PM »
https://www.fastcompany.com/3069048/where-are-military-robots-headed

From the article:

Future generations of military robots will almost certainly operate with more autonomy than comparable machines today—but will they be able to make life-or-death decisions?

“I can’t imagine a case where you’d want a robot to be autonomously making decisions about harming people,” says Endeavor’s Bielat.

But others are imagining that very thing and sounding the alarm, including the Vatican.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #143 on: June 19, 2017, 04:47:13 PM »
https://www.fastcompany.com/3069048/where-are-military-robots-headed

From the article:

Future generations of military robots will almost certainly operate with more autonomy than comparable machines today—but will they be able to make life-or-death decisions?

“I can’t imagine a case where you’d want a robot to be autonomously making decisions about harming people,” says Endeavor’s Bielat.

But others are imagining that very thing and sounding the alarm, including the Vatican.

We may want to keep a human finger on the trigger, but then we operate at a disadvantage to nation states that don't. Will China or Russia be so restrained?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« Reply #144 on: June 19, 2017, 05:31:32 PM »
WE NEED EMP RAY GUNS!!!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Uh oh , , , robotic/drone systems disruption in practice
« Reply #147 on: July 24, 2017, 12:18:04 PM »
Robotic Systems Disruption in Practice
Posted: 23 Jul 2017 11:01 AM PDT
The Ukrainian SBU now believes that the destruction of arms depot at Balakliya in March that did a billion dollars in damage was carried out by a small drone armed with a thermite grenade.  That's an ROI (Return on Investment) of $500,000 for every $1 invested (not bad relative to earlier comparatives).
 
This is a spot on demonstration of what I wrote back in February of 2016.  Here's a recap of what I wrote in that article: 
From a mechanical perspective, consumer drones aren't that impressive:

   ~1-2 pound payload
   ~20 min flight time
   20-40 miles per hour flight speed

However, these drones are smart and the smarter the drone is, the better it can mimic the performance of the much more expensive precision guided munition (PGM).  For example:

   Drones can fly themselves.  They can take-off, fly enroute, and land autonomously.
   Drones can precisely navigate a course based on the GPS waypoints you designate.
   Drones can now (a recent development) use digital cameras to find, track, and follow objects.  Some can even land on objects they find based on a description of that object. 

Even this basic capability is more than enough to turn a basic drone into an extremely dangerous first strike weapon against fragile/explosive targets. Here's a scenario that pits ten drones against a major airport: 

1.   Ten drones would take off autonomously in 1 minute intervals.
2.   Each would follow a GPS flightpath to a preselected portion of an airport.
3.   Upon arrival, a digital camera would identify the nearest wing of an aircraft.
4.   The drone would land itself in the middle of that wing.
5.   A pound of thermite in the payload would ignite upon landing. 
6.   The thermite would burn through the wing, igniting the fuel inside...
7.   Most of the airport and nearly all of the planes on the tarmac are destroyed.

Here are the takeaways: 

   Even the simple robotic platforms of today can be extremely effective as weapons.  At current rates of improvement in machine intelligence, the situation will get much more interesting very, very soon.

   It's possible to creatively trade inexpensive machine smarts for expensive mechanical performance. 

   We need to figure this out before the bad guys do.  However, truly figuring this out requires a deep insight into the dynamics driving this forward. 

Sincerely,
John Robb
PS:  The Balakliya follows five earlier attacks on warehouses and even this facility since December 2016 using the same technique.  They are getting better.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Bold eagles killing drones
« Reply #149 on: October 05, 2017, 05:12:08 PM »

Bold Eagles: Angry Birds Are Ripping $80,000 Drones Out of the Sky
Australia’s wedge-tailed eagle uses sharp talons, crack aerial combat skills to attack and destroy pricey flying machines
Daniel Parfitt’s crashed $80,000 drone after an attack by a wedge-tailed eagle.
By Mike Cherney
Sept. 29, 2017 12:10 p.m. ET

Daniel Parfitt thought he’d found the perfect drone for a two-day mapping job in a remote patch of the Australian Outback. The roughly $80,000 machine had a wingspan of 7 feet and resembled a stealth bomber.

There was just one problem. His machine raised the hackles of one prominent local resident: a wedge-tailed eagle.

Swooping down from above, the eagle used its talons to punch a hole in the carbon fiber and Kevlar fuselage of Mr. Parfitt’s drone, which lost control and plummeted to the ground.

“I had 15 minutes to go on my last flight on my last day, and one of these wedge-tailed eagles just dive-bombed the drone and punched it out of the sky,” said Mr. Parfitt, who believed the drone was too big for a bird to damage. “It ended up being a pile of splinters.”

Weighing up to nine pounds with a wingspan that can approach eight feet, the wedge-tailed eagle is Australia’s largest bird of prey. Once vilified for killing sheep and targeted by bounty hunters, it is now legally protected. Though a subspecies is still endangered in Tasmania, it is again dominating the skies across much of the continent.

These highly territorial raptors, which eat kangaroos, have no interest in yielding their apex-predator status to the increasing number of drones flying around the bush. They’ve even been known to harass the occasional human in a hang glider.

Birds all over the world have attacked drones, but the wedge-tailed eagle is particularly eager to engage in dogfights, operators say. Some try to evade these avian enemies by sending their drones into loops or steep climbs, or just mashing the throttle to outrun them.

A long-term solution remains up in the air. Camouflage techniques, like putting fake eyes on the drones, don’t appear to be fully effective, and some pilots have even considered arming drones with pepper spray or noise devices to ward off eagles.

They are the “ultimate angry birds,” said James Rennie, who started a drone-mapping and inspection business in Melbourne called Australian UAV. He figures that 20% of drone flights in rural areas get attacked by the eagles. On one occasion, he was forced to evade nine birds all gunning for his machine.

The birds are considered bigger bullies than their more-docile relatives, such as the bald and golden eagles in the U.S. Wedge-tailed eagles are the undisputed alpha birds in parts of Australia’s interior but it’s not entirely clear why they’re so unusually aggressive towards drones. Scientists say they go after drones probably because they view them as potential prey or a new competitor.

“They’re really the kings of the air in Australia,” said Todd Katzner, a biologist and eagle expert at the U.S. Geological Survey in Boise, Idaho. “There’s nothing out there that can compete with them.”

The problem is growing more acute as Australia makes a push to become a hot spot for drones. One state, Queensland, recently hosted the “World of Drones Congress” and last year gave about $780,000 to Boeing  Co. for drone testing. Amazon.com is expanding in Australia and could try using drones for deliveries, and the machines are increasingly favored by big landowners such as miners and cattle ranchers.

The eagles will often attack in male-female pairs, and they aren’t always deterred if their first foray fails. Sometimes they will come from behind, attack in tandem from above, or even stagger their assault. A drone operator may evade one diving eagle with an upward climb, but the second eagle can then snatch it, Mr. Rennie said.

“If you take your eye off that aircraft even for a couple of minutes, the likelihood is it will end up in pieces on the ground,” he said.​

In late 2015, Andrew Chapman, a co-owner at Australian UAV, was mapping a quarry and landfill site near Melbourne, and figured it was close enough to the city that an eagle attack was unlikely. But when the drone was about half a mile away, an eagle “materialized out of thin air and knocked out the drone,” Mr. Chapman said. He spent two days looking for the machine, worth about $35,000 at today’s retail price, and had to ship it to the manufacturer in Switzerland for repairs.

More exotic defenses have been considered. Mr. Chapman said arming drones with pepper spray was discussed but quickly discarded, out of concern it could harm the birds.

“It’s a relief to be planning for jobs overseas because we know the wedgies aren’t there,” said Mr. Chapman, using the local nickname for the bird.

Rick Steven, a survey superintendent at the St. Ives gold mine in Western Australia, who uses drones to survey the pits, debated using something like a ShuRoo—a device mounted on cars that makes noise, which humans can’t hear, to keep kangaroos off the road. But he was concerned it would be cumbersome on the drone and may not ward off eagles anyway.

 

 

A YouTube video of an eagle knocking a drone out of the sky.


Instead, Mr. Steven and other drone operators make use of another weapon: time. The eagles are less active in the early morning, because the thermals—columns of rising air—they use to fly don’t develop until later in the day after the sun has warmed the ground.

In his first 2½ years flying drones at the mine, Mr. Steven said he lost 12 drones to eagle attacks, which cost his employer, South Africa-based Gold Fields  Ltd. , some $210,000. During the past year, when he focused his flying in the morning, he has lost two—with two more close calls.

​​Any successes at deterring wedge-tailed eagle attacks in Australia could provide clues in how to minimize avian obstacles in other regions.

“Every time I go to a conference on birds and they’re having a workshop on drones, somebody tells me about this problem in Australia, about these wedge-tailed eagles,” said David Bird, a retired wildlife biology professor in Canada and founding editor of the Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems.


Mr. Parfitt, who began his drone business Aerial Image Works about three years ago, remains vigilant. Each of his last three jobs attracted an eagle attack.

Other birds will “fly at the drone and they’ll act in a very aggressive manner, but they don’t actually touch you,” he said. “I’m not scared of anything else attacking my drone except the wedge-tailed eagle.”

Write to Mike Cherney at mike.cherney@wsj.com