Microdrone Spy Planes 494
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?"
Fly through Windows? (Score:4, Funny)
Snap a couple of pictures, turn on a dime then fly right back out?
Fly through the other open window on the other side of the building?
Fly through window, Then EXPLODE... Now That would be cool.
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Collective (Score:4, Funny)
I think you mean "kibbutz".
Re:Not Collective (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only ones you'll terrorise with this thing is your cats! Mine hate it, they hide when I fly it indoors
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:2)
Better yet, how about carrying a string of 200 firecrackers? A great way to give back to the neighbor with that annoying barking dog.
Re:Fly through Windows? Tear gas anyone? (Score:2)
From the picture, it doesn't appear that the drone could have much, if any, payload. But if it does (or a later, slightly larger generation could), does anyone doubt that Israel hasn't already thought using these to carry tear gas or another irritant in order to clear buildings?
Think of the Predator [fas.org].
Seriously though, there is no need to fly out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:2)
--
Smack your momma good deals. It's the cat's meow! [dealsites.net]
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:2)
Not to be a political provocateur, but with what Israel has been up to the last few years, I'm sure that's exactly what they will do...
72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to what? Strapping it to some poor 10 or 15 year old kid who thinks he's soon going to be having his way with 72 virgins?
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Interesting)
They have their belief in one invisible man, we in another - let the two invisible guys (who are in fact the same guy) duke it out on Pay Per View and not in the streets. Please.
Religion ought to be banned outright planet wide!
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it is true, do you suppose that makes the human bomb any more justifiable?
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT - assuming it is true, then it would be because some supreme being finds it justifiable, presumably/hopefully because he/she/it/they can see a bigger picture than we can.
You and I may not like it, but any supreme being would be a better judge than you and I. And who knows - maybe the people who get blown up get 144 virgins/whatever for being another kind of martyr?
We don't know, and we CAN'T know. Maybe there are supreme beings, maybe there aren't. Personally I think the notion of doing the bidd
Re:72 Virgins (Score:5, Insightful)
It is usually going to be easier to breach defenses one-way than to go in, hit the enemy, and leave. Arriving with the intent of blowing up frees you to focus on the task rather than be distracted by 'misguided' attempts to survive the execution of it.
Where it gets less great is when you do one of two things:
1. Not clearly identify yourself as a hostile target, causing the other side to naturally suspect EVEYRONE on your side and probably qualifying you as an unlawful combatant (the Law of Armed Conflict [about.com] requires distinctive markings); or (much more seriously)
2. Target civilians, which is when you become not just a weapon, but a terrorist weapon.
There's no fundamental difference between a Palestinian wearing a uniform and a bomb blowing themselves up with a bunch of soldiers and, say, a US soldier storming a Japanese pillbox with a grenade knowing he's going to die. The issue is whether or not he's clearly marked and, more importantly, whether he's attacking soldiers on duty or civilians.
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Absurd level of moral relativism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:72 Virgins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it for a second. Who is taking whose land? I'm not talking about the past: I'm talking about the present.
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
You get the camera view from the nose of a cruise missile as it flies through one of Saddam's bunkers, showing lots of Iraqi soldiers scrambling out of the way as the missile negotiates hallways, doors, stairwells, bathrooms and then flies out a window and explodes in a school down the street.
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I have to disagree with this one. It's a new century and we can no longer pretend that murder is not murder by arbitrarily classifing the victims as acceptable military targets. There will never be world peace until solders accept that what they do is murder. I no longer accept that there is any difference between civilian murder and military murder. There are other ways of dealing with political situations; it's just that murder is the usually t
But (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But (Score:3, Funny)
Such a system would actually employ something like a gerbil and an excersise wheel.
Dig that propeller! (Score:5, Interesting)
All joking aside, those things would be hot sellers here in the USA.
Ever wonder what's going on behind the ten-foot-high stone walls of that rich dude's house on the corner? Why, just sent your drone flying overhead.
Police departments would dig those things, too, and so would rescue units.
And don't get me started on what the tabloid paparazzi could do with those things.
Re:Dig that propeller! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.rcmodels.com/airplanes-toy-rc-airplane
The one in the picture even looks sort of the same.
Re:Dig that propeller! (Score:4, Funny)
only until he deploys the manually operated ground-to-air rapidly re-targetable kinetic dispersion-projectile defense system (old fashioned shotgun).
Re:Dig that propeller! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wind is definitely a problem with these devices, but if you had a swarm of them and some skilled pilots you could do a lot of damage via intelligence collection or bomb/poison attack.
Re:Dig that propeller! (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine what could be done in a remote disaster situation in any region--even a metropolitan area--just by being able to fly low and into and around hard-to-reach areas.
Sure, while in this instance it's being used by soldiers, your point about rescue units, etc. is an idea I hope takes hold
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like (Score:5, Funny)
Fit in backpack. Was a little over a foot wide. Flew it into a window once...oh wait......
Very clever (Score:5, Insightful)
Preferably they'd eliminate the need for such things by reigning in their own hardline elements demands and work toward peace.
No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.
Re:Very clever (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Very clever (Score:3, Insightful)
This weapon, as well as Israel's famous gun (Uzi), and their tanks are of their own design.
Palestinians got a lot more than "military aid" in the past -- they got entire armies fighting for -- so it was claimed -- their cause. Israel's very existence hung on a hair against _hundreds_ of Egyptian and Syrian tanks.
Finally, the world certainly gives to Palestinians too -- food, medicine, buildings. Soviet Union and A
Re:Very clever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very clever (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good one. Ask yourself these questions:
What would happen if tomorrow the Palestinians said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."
Most people I ask say that a peace treaty would be signed.
What would happen if tomorrow the Israelis said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."
Most people I ask say that the Palestinians will kill all the Israelis.
Why are these answers different? Discuss, compare & contrast.
Asymmetric situations. (Score:3, Informative)
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, considerin
Re:Asymmetric situations. (Score:3, Informative)
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:
Re:Asymmetric situations. (Score:4, Insightful)
It may well be the case that, according to certain readings of international law, Israel is not defined as occupying the areas where the Palestinians live.
In which case, the Palestinians are long-time residents of Israel and should be given full citizenship and voting rights. Israel is a democratic state, right?
Re:Asymmetric situations. (Score:3, Insightful)
This report by the US State Department makes interesting reading if you think that Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as Jewish citizens:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/7 9 4. htm
How many Palestinians have you actually met?
The ones that I have met didn't seem to want anyone dead, of any religion.
The vast majority (at least in my experience) are
Re:Very clever (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Most of the Arab countries in the area have no more historical right than Israel does.
Then consider the tactics. The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The israelis intentionally target known terrorists, often passing up a chance at assasinating them until they're not surrounded by civilians. The Muslims intentionally try to kill the innocent - the Israelis do so only by accident.
Israel has gone out of their way to be fair, even going so far as to give back land taken during a defensive war. Ask yourself what any other country would do if in the process of defending itself in a war it pushed the enemy back and captured land. Would they give it back later, or keep it as just spoils of war? There's very little historical precedent for giving territory back to the agressors, yet Israel did this. The countries surrounding them easily have enough territory to take in the Palestinians and this has been proposed by people looking for peaceful solutions for years, but the Palestinians are left where they are. It just goes to show that the Muslims in the area aren't united by the fight for Palestinian freedom, they're united by religious hatred for Jews and the Palestinians are being used as pawns.
One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets. The other group is religious, a theocracy (in practice, not on paper), racist, homophobic, etc, and intentionally targets civilians. Who really is the bad guy in this scenario?
Re:Very clever (Score:4, Insightful)
Tomorrow's Scout (Score:5, Funny)
One (1) pair binoculars
One (1) pair night-vision goggles
One (1) Field emergency medical kit
One (1) M-4 rifle
Eighty (80) rounds 5.56 x 45mm NATO ammuniton
Ten (10) Meals Ready-to-eat
One (1) Mosquito micro-UAV
Ten (10) 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands
Re:Tomorrow's Scout (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tomorrow's Scout (Score:2)
What would you do with ten 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands in Vegas?
Re:Tomorrow's Scout (Score:2)
Tomorrow's Scout = One Mosquite micro-UAV
Seems to me like he's only being about 60% of what he can be.
- Jon Stewart
Re:Tomorrow's Scout (Score:5, Funny)
>One (1) pair night-vision goggles
> One (1) Field emergency medical kit
> One (1) M-4 rifle
> Eighty (80) rounds 5.56 x 45mm NATO ammuniton
>Ten (10) Meals Ready-to-eat
>One (1) Mosquito micro-UAV
> Ten (10) 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands
Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with that!
Better killers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
Re:Better killers (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you mean the struggle between Israel and Islamofascist terrorists?
Re:Better killers (Score:2)
Sorry, I forgot to include quotes and the tag.
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Better killers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
The two tend to be linked at the hip. There is considerable interest in the military to develop means of preventing civilian casualties or collateral damage. And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would. The type of WWII war where massive civilian casualties are accepted so long as you kill lots of enemy combatants are long gone. Third, increased intelligence will help you refine a priori assumptions you made about the enemy's tactics. If you are planning on destroying a building you believe to be an enemy command center but then receive intelligence that it's actually a homeless shelter, that's more valuable than just noting that it's a non-target. It tells you that you really don't know where the hell the command center really is! And it also makes you pause and question the quality of the pre-battle intelligence that labeled it as enemy headquarters.
Spy planes are here to stay and they will play a more important role in the conflicts to come. And I don't think you can separate their capabilities into "prevent violence" and "enable violence" bins. Those two qualities tend to be one and the same.
GMD
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. Whatever your views on the practice
Re:Better killers (Score:2)
And now you people complain about UAV's doing a soldier's dirty work for them? Why the fixation on sending real, live people into combat when the future wars can be waged o
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Informative)
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 insta
Re:Better killers (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong on two counts. First, the precise killing is a better killing, because a precise weapon reduces collateral damage -- the children, with which Rantissi and the like surround themselves in public suddenly become exposed to less risk.
Likewise Baghdad is still standing -- unlike some major German cities shortly after WWII -- because the precision of the bombing improved so much.
Second, you imply, that th
Re:Better killers (Score:2)
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Insightful)
like Tibet?
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Troll)
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palesti
Re:Better killers (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, you're an idiot. Israel didn't invent automatic weapons. By any measure, the Heckler & Koch MP5 is a better submachine gun than the Uzi, and that was invented by the peace-loving Swiss.
Gun-equivalent to a nuke? I'm sure the vulcan cannons are much more powerful than an uzi.
It's be nice if people stopped and remembered a few basic facts. #1, Palestinians were there first.
No, they weren't. Jews have been there for many thousands of years. Arabs didn't migrate out of Arabia until recently (1600 years or so).
#2, Palestinians have rocks; Israelis have gunship helicopters, fighter jets, tanks, RPGs, and nuclear weapons; compare the body counts from the palestinian bombings with the multiple retaliation strikes and note that the ratio is just a tad imbalanced.
The Israelis have a well trained military. The Palestinians do not. And even when other Arab nations with real militaries attacked Israel in the many Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs got their asses kicked, with far more Arab casulties than Israelis.
#3, you see terrorists- I see people fenced into ghetto prisons, whose basic resources(such as water) have been redirected out of the land they've been squeezed into, so desperate to protect their homes they're willing to strap bombs to themselves because they have no other means left to defend themselves.
Terrorists are those who delibrately attack civilians. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Whereas most Palestinians would probably be happy to have their land back and move on to living- Israel won't be satisfied until they've pushed Palestinians completely out of the way, or exterminated them.
Riiight. Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances. Don't believe me, go ask Hamas.
They're doing a damn fine job at both. They've stripped land, resources, and property to satisfy the needs of their own population, who are somehow better than the people that were there already.
Riiight. If the best military in the middle east wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, there would be millions of dead Palestinians next month, and the conflict would be over. But they don't, because that isn't the Israeli goal. You forget that when the UN created the modern state of Israel, it also created a Palestinian state. THIS WAS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE ARABS, AND THEY CHOSE THE PATH OF WAR. And lost.
Microsoft Spy Planes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Spy Planes (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
The US probably paid for them indirectly: US aid package --> Israel --> purchase Mini-spy planse from US company (of which the people who approve the aid packages probably have lots of money invested). ;)
3 mile range! (Score:2, Funny)
obligatory /. jokes (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, but can it fly through Linux?
Begun this drone war has!
In Soviet Russia, planes carry YOU!
Yeah, I know. my humour sucks.
a simpler time (Score:2, Funny)
In the future... (Score:4, Interesting)
Will we have 'hawk' or 'eagle' gliders that attempt to take out these reconaissance gliders?
Just like in DUNE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just like in DUNE (Score:2)
Re:Just like in DUNE (Score:2)
Better, imho, would be a small charge or grenade.
How much does a grenade weigh? How small a charge can be used to kill everyone within a 5mx5m room?
Re:Just like in DUNE (Score:2)
The next issue is, can these fly fast enough to survive against a shotgun? And if so, how long before politicians/famous people are targetted with these? ("these" - the hypothetical assassination drones that could be built today, not the UAV mentioned in the article)
Re:Just like in DUNE (Score:2)
I'd like to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
More (related info) (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1109/index.html
There's a lot of cool stuff related to similar projects.
we all know... (Score:2, Insightful)
hm (Score:5, Funny)
*rimshot*
More information from PBS... (Score:5, Informative)
New War? (Score:2)
This will only escalate exponentially untill perhaps man withdrawels his fragile body from war altogether?
Grenade (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Grenade (Score:2)
2. Jamming. It's one thing to lose control of a camera toting aircraft, quite another to have your flying grenade turn around and get you. Armed Predators can cary much better antijam electronics, because they are biggger.
3. Speed. See it coming, and
Ah, more US Tech... (Score:2, Interesting)
The wingspan was similar (about 15 inches, if I remember correctly), and could be controlled remotely. A color video camera and microphone on the "plane" would record any needed information.
Another cas
Stranger than Fiction (Score:2)
On display at the Tel Aviv conference were the Birdy and the Spy There mini-drones and two micro-drones, the Mosquito and the Mosquito 1.5. The models were developed by Israel Aircraft Industries' (IAI) engineering division.
The REAL Story:
"Yeah I'll take one of those balsa kits, that motor you showed me, a radio, and some glue. Oh and what sort of paint colors are availble?"
Gawrsh! (Score:2)
I should have joined the Marines instead (Score:2)
Resources (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to own one, personally, but I just love playing with rockets and planes.
As someone mentioned before, using these devices for rescue personel would be very cool
GTA Vice City (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Related Link (Score:5, Informative)
Small is the future? (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently this isn't an issue since the range of it is so small, but a small stealth bomber dropping a chemical or biological agent could be pretty dangerous.
This could kick its ass (Score:2)
- JML
Robot (Score:2)
Problem in plane (Score:4, Informative)
Btw the 1/2a racer has been clocked at over 90 mph. These things scream.
Flying thru Windows? (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Cooler than my firebird.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on my experience flying that, I'm skeptical about a few things:
- Flying conditions: The Firebird is quite a bit larger than that plane, but any winds above 5-10MPH or so make it difficult to control. That little plane would get tossed around even easier.
- Duration: One hour flight time would be excellent, but with something so tiny I'm not sure how they pack that much battery power. My firebird is lucy to get 10 minutes of flying time before a recharge.
- Flying through windows? - That seems unlikely with one of these units. That level of accuracy is very difficult, and at the speeds you need to keep it flying, you would not have much time to maneuver this thing. Also, in the article they describe plotting a destination on a map - like a GPS controlled craft. How the hell would you fly through windows in that scenario.
Anyway, the hobby store variety of these things are a blast.. I highly recommend picking a couple up ( a couple because you're sure to crater it several times when first learning ).
Russians use something like this, too (Score:5, Informative)
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
Fewer casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not unlike some of the security discussions we've had here. Force people to have 4 passwords, and they'll write them on sticky-notes besides their screen, reducing security. Passwords are _supposed_ to make systems safer, but abuse them and they are counter-productive.
Drone technologies will completely change the strategy of conflict. One month before 9/11, a colleague and I predicted rc planes would be used against the White House. Ok, so we were off. But think about it: if the Israelis can use this, why couldn't the "terrorist" Palestinians? Imagine for a second what an rc plane/helicopter could do with non-conventional means...
Assymetrical warfare is used because one side has no chance at symmetrical -conventional- warfare. As this reinforces "full-spectrum dominance", it only increases the risk of terrorist attack.
I hope such drones are only used for reconnaissance, and not to carry out direct assassinations, causing another escalation.
In the long-term, we will need to make our conflict resolution systems more robust, so they don't degenerate so fast and with such bloody consequences. Another interesting thing to note is as war becomes more capital intensive, we can expect the rise of Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation [members.shaw.ca]