Armed Robot Drones To Join UK Police Force

Lanxon writes "British criminals should soon prepare to be shot at from unmanned airborne police robots. Last month it was revealed that modified military aircraft drones will carry out surveillance on everyone from British protesters and antisocial motorists to fly-tippers. But these drones could be armed with tasers, non-lethal projectiles and ultra-powerful disorienting strobe lighting apparatus, reports Wired. The flying robot fleet will range from miniature tactical craft such as the miniature AirRobot being tested by one police force, to BAE System's new 12m-wide armed HERTI drone as flown in Afghanistan."

Idiots on parade

[hyades1]

Anything sub-lethal will be childishly easy to defeat, once it's been seen in action a few times. And no doubt the methods used will quickly be adapted by terrorists for Third World use on the more dangerous versions of the drones.

I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.

One hint: how will the cops look when they taser a minor who happens to be dressed like the alleged criminal, and how difficult would it be to engineer such a substitution?

Waaahh! Wahhhh! 1984!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're all right.

The Police should do nothing to modernise at all and stick to using the same procedures from the 19th and 20th century whilst the criminal fraternity leaves them behind.

Grow up!

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

This makes it sound simpler than it is, and it costs a bit, but other than incidentals like epoxy, about all it would take is this (assuming it is not some kind of stealthed craft). Don't try this at home.

Body: Heavy-duty cardboard tube. A section of tube from a roll of carpet should do the trick if it is one of those with a thick wall, but even that is a bit large. It would have sufficient strength. But a lightweight metal tube also works.

Fins: Metal or strong wood. They have to be sturdy enough to not distort at mach 1+, and take some heat. Balsa and plastic are definitely not suitable. (And you probably want to make the fins swept to reduce drag.) The attachment must be STRONG.

Control surfaces: SMALL aileron-like panels on the back of the fins. (At high speed it doesn't take much control surface or deflection to change direction.) Vectoring the nozzle is not an option. It is a rocket, not a jet. Usually most of the trajectory will be coasting. Engine burn time will probably not be more than about 1.5 seconds.

Control system: I initially put some details here but I am going to leave that out. I know what approach I would use, but I don't want to be accused of being one of the Bad Guys for putting some kind of full-blown missile plans on the internet. Cost though for the electronics should very easily be under $100.

Business end: your choice here. In some cases I am pretty sure just a hard point should be sufficient to discombobulate an engine. If it is a low-flying craft you might reasonably expect your interceptor to be moving 600 mph or faster. If I were really some kind of freedom fighter against an oppressive tyranny or something, I might use something besides just a point. But weight is an issue.

Propulsion: G-class model rocket engine. Available mail-order for around $30. In some states you need a license to buy them.

Finish: It is important that the finish be very smooth, even polished. The tip of the nose and the leading edges of the fins need special attention. And they should at the very least be coated with heat-resistant paint. That might be a good idea for the whole thing.

That's a pretty rough layout, and might need some tweaking. But possible? Heck yeah. (And note: even if you build something like this just for a hobby rocket, it is VERY dangerous. Adults only. A high degree of common sense and caution required.)

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm unsure about the first three without examples, but I can tell you more about the magistracy. The three magistrates who sit are essentially a small jury, and as such examine fact over law. Advice (more instruction) on the law (and appropriate sentencing) is given by a legal advisor who is a trained solicitor, often with quite considerable experience. Magistrates almost always follow the guidance of the legal advisor as there are big issues with being overly harsh or lenient. I know several magistrates.

New guidelines are very much against using Section 44 powers to stop people taking photographs. The idiocy of some of the stops got too embarrassing.

Besides that, +1 my man. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:or

[memnock]

roads which i will never willingly follow to the UK. not that i was planning any trips overseas, but i don't think i'll ever consider going to the UK again. i enjoyed my one visit there years ago, but at this point, i don't know if i'd be able to get out, if they let me in.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

If they run - they're VC! If they stay still - they're well-trained VC!