Microdrone Spy Planes

glinden writes "BBC News is reporting that Israel is now deploying microdrone spy planes. These planes have a wingspan of 13 inches (33 cm), can be carried in a backpack, can be launched by a single soldier, and can even fly through windows. The next step in the drone wars?"

More (related info)

[cetan]

Check out the Scientific American Frontiers episode on flight: Flying Free (2001)

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1109/index.html

There's a lot of cool stuff related to similar projects.

More information from PBS...

[Foggiano]

NOVA ran a show a few months ago about the development and deployment of unmanned military aircraft. They have some interesting items here [pbs.org].

Re:Dig that propeller!

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

You can get one pretty easily.
http://www.rcmodels.com/airplanes-toy-rc-airplanes .html [rcmodels.com]

The one in the picture even looks sort of the same.

Re:Better killers

[USAPatriot]

What is this Palestine you speak of? I don't see this country listed in the CIA World Factbook. [cia.gov]

This country isn't in the UN member list. [un.org]

What kind of government does this Palestine have? Who is its head of state?

Related Link

[Your_Mom]

For those of you who, like me, are fascinated by these things, check out The UAV forum [uavforum.com] lotsa neat discussion, information, and links.

Re:Very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey if you gave the Palestinians billions of US$ a year in military aid maybe they would.

Then they wouldn't have to "manually" deliver the bombs either.

You seem unaware of the billions in aid the the EU and other Arab nations give to the Palestinians.

Re:Nothing new

[orenmnero]

Ugh. It is well known that Israel is often ahead of the U.S. in developing new military technology. I think you should be asking whether the planes you saw employed by the U.S. army were bought from Israel [us-israel.org]. Although the U.S. was the first to experiment with drones during Vietnam, it is Israel that created the first incredibly succesfull drones which inspired [strategypage.com] the united states UAV program. At the time it was embarassing to the DOD that Israel's tiny budget could accomplish what they had spent billions on and failed. This is what is meant when people say that the money pumped into Israel more than pays for itself with the intelligence and technology they provide.

Re:Better killers

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

That is the same retarded logic used in banning non-lethal, although permanent injury causing weapons like laser dazzler's and other high-tech weaponry.

What retarded logic? All I said was this will be used in the current conflict, and that it has both positive and negative potential.

I must not be getting your point, because I agree that it is better to disable a soldier than to kill them... at least it is an option.

On a less human note, it is occasionally more desirable to wound than kill. For instance, in the civil war many generals told their soldiers to inflict non-lethal wounds. It wasn't out of brotherly love, but the fact that a wounded soldier takes one or two good soldiers to drag him off the field to the medic tent. That means you removed three men from the fighting with one shot.

Problem in plane

[g0bshiTe]

As an avid R/C pilot for many years. I don't think using an aircraft with a 13 inch wingspan is going to do much good. These planes are extremely suceptable to wind. I have a 1/2a pilon racer with a 24" wingspan and an .049 engine. It can only be flown when the wind is less than 15 mph. In a place where mountains, hills and thermals abound I doubt their plane will be much use.

Btw the 1/2a racer has been clocked at over 90 mph. These things scream.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[BJZQ8]

Been done. The version at this link... Link [hobby-lobby.com] Comes with fixed pitch, but can be upgraded to full collective (he's talking about collective pitch on a helicopter blade, not the Borg you Star Trek watching clod.) These things can do wild aerobatics, inverted flight, whatever you want. Putting a GPS receiver on it might be a bit of a challenge, as they will hardly lift anything...I imagine they could carry a grenade, too though.

Re:Fly through Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of Course it is designed to Explode, and to destroy the entire family - Dad, Mom, Grandma, Grandpa, the kids, etc. It is also designed to turn anyone who survives into a person dedicated to revenge upon the people who support the military which directed the thing into the living room in the first place. What a wonderful weapon to advance state-driven terrorism and take us all one more step away from any home we'll ever live in a peaceful world!

And you get 4 points for being funny... What a sick bunch of bastards!

This is nothing special....

[Anonymous Coward]

A few people have pointed out that this thing looks like a model airplane. Thats because it is. The body structure is directly copied from the RC modeling world.

The reason this model airplane technology is seeing millitary applications is because of two technologies.

1) li-poly batterys. Very light and has a high energy density.

2) Brushless motors. These are far and away more efficient than the older technology brushed motors. They also happen to be dead silent in the air - the only noise you can hear comes from the prop.

Electic flight has finally matured in the last two years. Flight times have gone from 5-8 min just a few years ago to todays hour plus flight times (put a couple li-poly packs in parallel and your good to go.

batteries can be had here:
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/kokam.htm

off the shelf planes can be bought here:
www.gws.com.tw
www.hobby-lobby.com/

discussion fourums here:
www.rcgroups.com/

Russians use something like this, too

[melted]

Russians use something like this, too, against Chechen insurgents (calling them "rebels" is fundamentally wrong). Their drone is called "Pchela" it's quite a bit bigger and requires at least two soldiers to launch (from what I've seen on TV).

Here's some info:
A Pchela (remotely piloted reconnaissance drone that provides television surveillance of ground targets) weighs 130 kilograms (loaded), has an operational range of 110 to 150 kilometers, can fly at altitudes ranging from 100 meters to 3 kilometers, and cruises at speeds from 11- to 150 kilometers an hour. Combat-recorded range: 55 kilometers. Its flight endurance is 2 hours (it needs 20 liters of gasoline for this). Its power plant is piston plus two solid rockets takeoff boosters (power at 32hp). Onboard of the Russian drone are a video camera, a still camera, a mapping camera, and a secure radio. It uses a parachute for landing. Pchela is probably equal in capability to many Western UAV in the same class. However, it is a slower, tactical unmanned aerial vehicle than, for example, the Russian the 800-kilometer-per-hour Reis UAV.

More info available at:
http://ufo.psu.ru/eng/dagestan.html

Re:Better killers

[Desert Raven]

NATO soldiers are not allowed to use shotguns, hollowpoint bullets, or anti-personnel lasers, because, perversely, they might leave the target alive. The 5.56mm rounds fired from an M16 are required to be jacketed to reduce their chance of tearing off an arm or leg, making nonlethal injuries more treatable.

Um, wrong.

First, shotguns *are* currently used by military security patrols. They're not used by field troops because of the extremely short range. In WWI, they were used in trench warfare.

Second, hollowpoints are *more* destructive, not less. Solid rounds tend to punch through, damaging only those things directly in path, and many times imparting only a fraction of their energy into the target. Hollow points #1 expand to a wider path, and #2 impart more of their energy (usually all of it) into the target, due to the greater surface area. This causes far greater damage.

As for 5.56 mm rounds being required to be jacketed, actually, *all* small-arms rounds are required to be jacketed, from long before the 5.56 was even on the drawing board. (Pre-dates the Geneva convention.) The 5.56mm is most dangerous due to the incredible *velocity* (up to 3,200fps) it carries. When hitting a solid body, a hypersonic shock wave follows the projectile, creating damage far removed from the actual path of the projectile. A hit in the thigh has been known to cause thrombosis of the major arteries well up into the abdomen and chest. (Fluids transmit shock waves *very* efficiently.) Also, that same hit, in the meat of the thigh, where the projectile itself never impacted the bone, can easily pulverize the femur, from the shock waves alone.

No comment on the lasers, that's out of my area of expertise.

And yes, I *have* taken several courses on wound ballistics.

Asymmetric situations.

[Draxinusom]

I don't believe that the Palestinians' tactic of murdering civilians is ever justified in any circumstance, and in general I find myself to the right of the people I know on this subject; I would call myself "pro-Israel." Nevertheless, the basic fact is that Israel is the occupier, "Palestine" is the occupied. Even Ariel Sharon has acknowledged this. They don't call them "the occupied terroritories" for nothing. I daresay the Israelis would be more than happy to sign a peace treaty right now, considering that they are currently in possession of the land that is in dispute.

Regarding the grandparent post, there's no need for anything as baroque as poison darts. Sheik Ahmed Yassin was killed by Hellfire missiles launched by an Apache. Hellfires are laser-guided, so there was either an IDF soldier on the scene or a remote drone like the one in the article. It's easy to imagine the Apache being replaced by a highflying Predator or other unmanned craft, with target designation being performed by a drone. Gregg Easterbrook blogged about this [tnr.com] today.

Re:Asymmetric situations.

[superyooser]

the basic fact is that Israel is the occupier, "Palestine" is the occupied.

According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel. The following was reported in Arutz-7 on March 18:

"Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not 'occupied territories' according to international law due to the fact that they were not taken from any foreign sovereign," says Law Professor Talia Einhorn, a senior member of the research faculty at Tel Aviv University and a Law professor at the Shaarei Mishpat College in Hod HaSharon.

Einhorn delivered her statements at a session entitled "U.S.-Israel Relations" at the Jerusalem Conference which concluded Wednesday. She declared: "It is important to remember and mention daily what Israel has already said for years, not only the government, but judicial experts - that Yesha [Judea, Samaria and Gaza], according to international law is not occupied territory." Einhorn explained that when Israel won the Six-Day War, no foreign country had recognized sovereignty over the land that was liberated. Egypt claimed no sovereignty over Gaza, and when Jordan tried to assert sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in 1950, the only countries to recognize it were England and Pakistan - with England limiting its recognition to eastern Jerusalem, but not the expanses of land extending north and south of it.

"Their biggest opponents were in fact the Arab countries," said Einhorn. She went on to say that the 1967 demarcation lines are in fact, according to international agreements, simply cease-fire lines that should never be considered political demarcations or national borders.

In the Encyclopedia of International Law, it is written that Israel was established without international borders. Israel's only internationally recognized borders are with Jordan and Egypt, as a result of the peace agreements that were signed.

Calling Israel 'Colonialist' with the intention of deligitimization is very severe, Einhorn said, especially considering how specious the argument is. "The Land of Israel is our land. No other nation ever made Israel into its country."

Einhorn reminded the attendees at the Jerusalem Conference that the biblical curse according to which Israel will remain desolate when controlled by foreigners unfolded throughout history as a reality. Einhorn pointed out that it is largely for this reason that no other nation ever claimed it, and "we must remember this."

Even Ariel Sharon has acknowledged this.

He has used the term "occupied" only one time, and that was because of the onslaught of pressure coming from the UN, US, EU, Russia, Israeli leftists, the Arab world, and his own fears about his perception in the world.

Don't forget that Sharon was the preeminent supporter of the now-labeled "occupied territories." Those "settlements" are there because he helped set them up! For most of his life, he praised Zionism to the hilt. Unfortunately, the office of PM has altered his behavior regarding Zionism, but I do not think he genuinely believes in his heart that Israel is illegally occupying any land.

Sharon's words have become very untrustworthy in the last few years. He flipflops worse than John Kerry [slashdot.org]. He's liable to say anything these days. If you've been following Israeli politics, you'll know that much of what Sharon says should not automatically be regarded as admissions, denials, agreements, plans, or anything that might portend something significant. We have to watch his actions, but even then, we would have to put them in the correct context, taking into account the matrix of political calculations and contrasting pressures from all sides, to understand his true motivations. For instance, Sharon calling part of Israel "occupied" probably means only that one source of lobbying and pressure is having more influence at that particular moment than other sources.

Re:Very clever

[Mr. Slippery]

The area occupied by Israel was largely unoccupied before the late 1800s and early 1900s when Jewish settlers started moving into the area.

Completely incorrect. The inconvenient fact that there were all these people already there is why the Zionists had to engage in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in 1948 [palestineremembered.com], and why the "right to return" has been an issue.

When Israel was formed it was the largest single group of Jews in the world and its creation was merely a matter of the British setting borders in the area to best represent the political/racial groups.

Let's get the history [un.org] straight. At the end of WWI, with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain. The British double-crossed the Arab population living there and made the Balfour Declaration, commiting Britian to the establishment of Jewish homeland in Palestine. (As with current U.S. support, the primary motivation was strategic interests in the area.)

In the early 20th century there were around 50,000 Jewish settlers living in the region, constituting perhaps 10% of the population. The remaining 90% of the population was, oddly enough. not very pleased at having foreign colonial powers come in and take over. (It should be noted that before WWI, the Jews and Arabs in the region got along reasonably peacefully. It was Zionists outside Palestine who worked for the Balfour Declaration.)

During the 1920s, thanks to British policies about 100,000 Jewish immigrants arrived - a substantial number in a region with a population of about 750,000. The Jewish population more than doubled, rising to over 17%, and tensions began to rise.

In the 1930s, the Nazis began their reign of terror, and many Jews who escaped came to Palestine. By 1939 the Jewish population was over 445,000, out of a total of about 1,500,000 - nearly 30 per cent. By 1947, the total population of Palestine was 1,850,000, including 608,000 Jews.

The large Jewish population in the region at the time of the parition was only the result of decades of concerted effort by the British and by Zionist organizations.

The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace. -- Arnold J. Toynbee, 1968

It's a very popular myth that there was this vast empty space on the map that the Jewish refugees from WWII could occupy. The truth is that there were plenty of people aready living there, getting screwed over by the British Empire's form of Zionism.

(And indeed, the Jews have been victims in this too, a reasonable desire for a homeland twisted and warped by British and American politics, so that instead of slowly and peacefully building a independant nation, today the "Jewish homeland" is an unsustainable enterprise, existing only because of the support of the United States.)

One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets.

Israel is Jewish state. Orthodox Judaism is the only legally recognized form of Judaism, and has considerable authority, with control over marriages, burials, and decisions over "who's a Jew". It takes great twisting of the language to regard that as secular.

It takes greater twisting to re