We have a standing policy here at DIY Drones of no discussion of weaponizing drones, but the White House incident was so important and this Wired article so illuminating that I'm going to make an exception this time. From Wired:
If you want to understand why the government freaked out when a $400 remote-controlled quadcopter landed on the White House grounds last week, you need to look four miles away, to a small briefing room in Arlington, Virginia. There, just 10 days earlier, officials from the US military, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FAA gathered for a DHS “summit” on a danger that had been consuming them privately for years: the potential use of hobbyist drones as weapons of terror or assassination.
The conference was open to civilians, but explicitly closed to the press. One attendee described it as an eye-opener. The officials played videos of low-cost drones firing semi-automatic weapons, revealed that Syrian rebels are importing consumer-grade drones to launch attacks, and flashed photos from an exercise that pitted $5,000 worth of drones against a convoy of armored vehicles. (The drones won.) But the most striking visual aid was on an exhibit table outside the auditorium, where a buffet of low-cost drones had been converted into simulated flying bombs. One quadcopter, strapped to 3 pounds of inert explosive, was a DJI Phantom 2, a newer version of the very drone that would land at the White House the next week.
Attendee Daniel Herbert snapped a photo and posted it to his website along with detailed notes from the conference. The day after the White House incident, he says, DHS phoned him and politely asked him to remove the entire post. He complied. “I’m not going to be the one to challenge Homeland Security and cause more contention,” says Herbert, who runs a small drone shop in Delaware called Skygear Solutions.
Read the rest here
Comments
Hey Obama! I can build you one of these for only $650,000.00
BINGO!
http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2013/06/how-to-build-a-radiodrone...
With all the search terms I'm putting in to find this picture, the FBI should be at my door in 3,2,1...
@ Jimmy, I had a great old AC welder that had a spark gap high frequency generator on it.
Took out all RF communications within about a 6 block radius, Television just instantly turned to static.
Needless to say I used the high frequency feature very seldom and only at times of the day when it would be least noticed.
The FCC would not have been amused, especially since I was only a couple miles away from Lawrence Livermore Radiation Lab, where I am sure my welder gave them the occasional fit.
I'm looking for that (pic) of the old school signal jammer they used in the early radio days. Looked like a electric motor on some wood blocks. I read somewhere they were really effective and outlawed. Anyone seen that? 1920's maybe?
Hi Chris,
I very much appreciate your sticking this in here, because it really isn't about weaponizing drones, it is about the threat to our hobby from the perception / reality of anybody intent on doing so or the public or political opinion relating to same.
And the US, in particular has a lot of the most important targets for these.
The real problem is that at this time there is seriously no effective defense against them, and inevitably th9is will be tested.
Really it was us who developed the culture and permissability of the unmanned stand off drone targeting people in another country on the ground so turn about really isn't going to be a surprise to anybody.
Unfortunately, after 911, terrorism and Homeland Security have become very Orwellian in their scope and reality.
Undoubtedly Homeland has been effective at detecting and preventing some terrorist attacks.
But at a cost to personal freedom and wasted time.
Safety at any cost really isn't a viable option, because then you are truly at the mercy of those who claim to make you safe.
And our government has lately accrued a truly great record of taking advantage of every opportunity to take care of themselves and those who can benefit them at the expense of the public it is supposed to serve.
Oh well enough antipolitical rant, the bottom line is you really can't stop a Phantom and it isn't at all clear you would want to live in the World where you can.
Best,
Gary
We need to start a new internet meme.
Can anybody post a photo of a Phantom flying with a bag of concrete strapped to the bottom?
There is no way to shape the explosion when using a UAS, and the payload is very limited. In addition access to high yield explosives that might have compensated for the limited payload, are highly restricted.
This is why pretty much all terrorist bombings you hear about in the news have used cars. They need the loading space to be "efficient" with the means they have. In short, a weaponized hobby UAS will never bring down a building. That leaves small scale bombs directed at a specific person or persons. Something that I imagine is easier accomplished by a rifle or simply sending the bomb it in the mail.
Because of the limited payload and flight duration, the only really efficient military role a small UAS can be used for, is local surveillance. And that is what the military use them for. If it had other practical military applications, they would have been all over it long time ago.
And regardless of all this. The cat has been out of the bag for many years now. No amount of regulation or laws will prevent terrorists (or anyone else for that matter) from using UAS if they so want. It's not like they really care if they break a few minor laws in the process.
Ban cell phones because they can detonate explosives. Something like this on drones
Lets not forget this setup by the FBI years ago http://www.suasnews.com/2011/09/8525/cnn-reporting-pentagon-attack-... Rewinding the clock all the way back to the first ARC. Perhaps the DHS altitude speed and weight recommendations will become part of the NPRM. If they do maybe the only AMA fields which was spoken of will also pop up.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next