That's Not a Drone!

[Ivan Seeking]

Whatever they hit must have come down. If they were over land, maybe it will be found.

 

[berkeman]

I skimmed the article, but could not tell where the impact was on the plane. Was it on an engine or a control surface?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I skimmed the article, but could not tell where the impact was on the plane. Was it on an engine or a control surface?

Allegedly it destroyed one of the engines. But that is not yet confirmed by official sources.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Multiple reputable sources are reporting that the engine was damaged. And the original claim was that it hit a metallic object. I don't know how they made that determination originally.

The possibility of a bird strike was mentioned. And while apparently ruled out by the nature of the damage, I was surprised to learn that some birds can fly that high.

 

[berkeman]

Yeah, the reports I read said that there was no evidence of biological remains in the engine, but there was metallic damage (whatever that means).

 

[Flyboy]

Yeah, the reports I read said that there was no evidence of biological remains in the engine, but there was metallic damage (whatever that means).

Something like this, most likely.

That’s from a screw coming out and pinballing around the intake for a second or two. A drone would trash much more than that if it hit the fan, and would totally shell the engine if a motor went through the gas generator core.

Commercial off-the-shelf drones can, and have, reach(ed) altitudes of 30,000 feet. DJI in particular demonstrated flying one of their higher-end hobby drones over the summit of Mount Everest recently. I don’t recall if it made the ascent from Base Camp all the way to the summit in a single sortie, or stopped along the way for a battery swap.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

 

[jtbell]

A private drone took out one of the Super Scooper planes fighting the Palisades fire in California.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is more from the Governors regarding drone activity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

60 Minutes did a segment about the incursions over military bases, including Langley. They don't know who it is or how to bring them down.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-swarms-national-security-60-minutes-transcript/

 

[renormalize]

60 Minutes did a segment about the incursions over military bases, including Langley. They don't know who it is or how to bring them down.

Maybe the US should ask Ukraine for help. I've seen POV videos of their drones flying over Russian ones and dropping a net to capture and force them down.

 

[russ_watters]

60 Minutes did a segment about the incursions over military bases, including Langley. They don't know who it is or how to bring them down.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-swarms-national-security-60-minutes-transcript/

I think lot of that was military officials playing dumb. This isn't a new threat. One of my classmates' teams for our senior design project 25+ years ago was an autonomous radio controlled plane. Anyone with a military thought could see that that's a potential cruise missile, now in the hands of moderate skill civilians.

All that's really changed in the past 10 years is the noise has increased. The number of relatively harmless civilian drones has increased exponentially. But that has little to do with the military threat unless there are a significant number of civilian drone operators being stupid about where they are flying.

While the increase in civilian drones does mean is it provides cover for foreign spy drones, the problem of securing the bases has changed very little. The problem isn't in ability to detect detect or even shoot them down, it's in identification as a threat and moreso just the limitations in conducting defensive combat operations in the middle of civilian areas (same reason it took so long to shoot down the spy balloon). Even if we were at war we're not going to start hosing down south Jersey with 20mm shells to take down a 1 kg drone. So we need other means, such as jammers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All that's really changed in the past 10 years is the noise has increased.

They failed on several counts discussed. Did you watch the segment?

They didn't anticipate military drones being used here so soon and didn't put countermeasure in place soon enough. As a result, they can't track them (they didn't have the proper equipment). And then as you mentioned, they have difficulties safely taking out invasive drones without causing problem for the surrounding population.

But they also stated explicitly that anti-drone countermeasures have completely failed. That's not good.

The fact is that the nature of warfare is changing quickly. It is a bit concerning when you see the Chinese flying 10,000 drones at once.

 

[russ_watters]

They failed on several counts discussed. Did you watch the segment?

I read the transcript.

They didn't anticipate military drones being used here so soon and didn't put countermeasure in place soon enough.

Sure, that's believable, perhaps even typical.

As a result, they can't track them (they didn't have the proper equipment).

Proper equipment deployed or operated. I'd draw a distinction between not having the proper equipment deployed (or being limited by regulations*) and what implies not knowing how.

*I was on a frigate on 9/11. That afternoon we fired-up our search radar while tied-up to the dock. According to the radar operators it was illegal to do so in peacetime. Meanwhile the SPY-1 on the destroyers/cruisers was software-limited by the ABM treaty to not track satellites/objects in space and the CIWS from shooting down seagulls.

But they also stated explicitly that anti-drone countermeasures have completely failed. That's not good.

I don't see that they said that, can you provide a quote? What I see is that they are hamstrung by the situation/rules of engagement. There's an ironic vulnerability there due to being at peace. Here's the relevant quotes I see:

"Well, I think the, the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and, and track the threat. I think all eyes were, rightfully, overseas, where UAVs were being used on one-way attack to attack U.S. and coalition service members. And the threat in the U.S. probably caught us by surprise a little bit."

Previous quote:

"In overseas war zones, the U.S. military has broad authority to bring down menacing drones with gunfire, missiles, and electronic jamming. Here at home, any of those actions would pose a threat to civilians on the ground and in the air."

The fact is that the nature of warfare is changing quickly. It is a bit concerning when you see the Chinese flying 10,000 drones at once.

We're not at war with China. The threat being discussed is peacetime spying, and is very different from armed combat. In armed combat the gloves come off and civilians, knowing that, stay away from the bases. Then the problems with defense in a civilian area largely go away.

 

[JT Smith]

I was struck by the fact the drones were visible because they had lights on them. Why would spy drones be lit up?

And what exactly could they see that could be revealing? I can understand that they might cause physical damage to aircraft on the ground. But how much could they get from photos/videos of the base?

 

[Baluncore]

If there are too many drones overhead, close the airspace to drones, then fly autonomous police drones, to net any intruders that enter the outer perimeter. That will work for military establishments and for airports.

Why is there paranoia about being seen or spied upon at a home base? If you need privacy, keep the activity inside a building, or underground. Most secrecy is there to hide incompetence, to avoid embarrassment, and to restrict criticism.

It seems the authorities are embarrassed by their inability to regulate and police drone activity. It's a fair cop.

 

[russ_watters]

I was struck by the fact the drones were visible because they had lights on them. Why would spy drones be lit up?

Yeah, the vast majority - and I mean like 95%+ of the New Jersey "drone" sightings were mis-identified conventional aircraft or planets/stars. But that doesn't mean there isn't also a problem with people flying drones flying over bases. There is a vulnerability and it's proven real:
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-new...pionage-after-flying-drone-over-nn-navy-ships

...but that doesn't mean it's a big problem/risk:

And what exactly could they see that could be revealing? I can understand that they might cause physical damage to aircraft on the ground. But how much could they get from photos/videos of the base?

Right. There are commercial and government/spy satellites already flying over every place in the world, so anything sensitive already needs to be inside. Heck, on an east-west commercial flight a few years ago I saw something suspicious, took a few photos, and later confirmed it was Area 51/52.

The bigger drone risk is terrorism. A few or few dozen small drones with grenade-sized charges in a crowd would be a big problem.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems the authorities are embarrassed by their inability to regulate and police drone activity. It's a fair cop.

I agree with everything you said above, so I'm not sure about that one. Why would they be embarrassed about something they aren't even trying to stop and don't care much about?

I'm a private pilot. I'm certain I could fly a private plane onto McGuire Air Force base in New Jersey and land on their runway without being shot down. The [displaced threshold] runway is about 100yds from the boundary of the base, so I could be on the ground in less than 10 seconds after crossing the boundary. Would they be more embarrassed by that or would I?