Jon Snow’s grasp of Air Power
SASless,
Absolutely none at all. I was referring to the geography of the areas concerned. You can do things over a barren unpopulated area that you cannot do just outside Crawley in Southern England.
Absolutely none at all. I was referring to the geography of the areas concerned. You can do things over a barren unpopulated area that you cannot do just outside Crawley in Southern England.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ppr00ne
Controlled yes, operated no. Dominating the operating area can not therefore be dismissed out of hand.
How they might dominate the area is not for us to speculate.
As to 'dominating the local area" with a rock squadron, what on earth would be the point? This thing could be being controlled from anywhere on the planet
How they might dominate the area is not for us to speculate.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of LGW it would be possible to operate a safe arc system. True the area has high population density but it is not entirely built up. For obvious reasons drone operation was probably from less populated areas and sniper teams in elevated positions could fire down into safe areas.
Wader2,
ROE for the Olympics in London were, I would imagine, vastly different from those appertaining to a drone hovering over LGW. The threat was also vastly different, a hijacked wide body airliner bearing down on Central London is going to call for a very different risk and collateral damage scenario than a drone hovering over an airport.
And I'm sure that the drone operator will be nowhere near the actual drone. Dropped off maybe days before, possibly numerous different drones, then all controlled from anywhere remotely. Drones get zapped, drop off another load and do it all over again. This is going to be VERY difficult to counter.
ROE for the Olympics in London were, I would imagine, vastly different from those appertaining to a drone hovering over LGW. The threat was also vastly different, a hijacked wide body airliner bearing down on Central London is going to call for a very different risk and collateral damage scenario than a drone hovering over an airport.
And I'm sure that the drone operator will be nowhere near the actual drone. Dropped off maybe days before, possibly numerous different drones, then all controlled from anywhere remotely. Drones get zapped, drop off another load and do it all over again. This is going to be VERY difficult to counter.
Especially as the airport wasn't actually in operation at the time. With only the drone in the air, and no reason to believe it is armed in any way, the public are effectively in zero danger. So now your risk/reward calculation has to offset any risk associated with downing the drone against the economic/convenience benefit of re-opening the airport. That means you need to have a pretty high level of confidence that no-one's going to get hurt before you start taking pot shots and risk dropping a dead drone onto the local orphanage.
Footage of a drone at Gatwick.
News articles at following links showing the footage.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/20/first...rport-8271026/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TS-runway.html
News articles at following links showing the footage.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/20/first...rport-8271026/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TS-runway.html
Well, it seems the Israeli system was indeed used yesterday. The Mail Online is among news sources currently showing photos of it in action on an LGW roof.
Last edited by XV490; 21st Dec 2018 at 12:23. Reason: Addendum
Back in WW2, there was a concept of a 'rammer fighter' proposed - maybe we need racing drones that kamikaze at the offending drone
I'd imagine the biggest concern isn't the dead drone, but overshooting rounds from high powered weapons (I don't imagine shotguns would be much of an option). Not quite Lebanese wedding style, but the good people of Sussex and Surrey may get upset if ballistic 7.62 or 0.5 started raining down on them!!
Back in WW2, there was a concept of a 'rammer fighter' proposed - maybe we need racing drones that kamikaze at the offending drone
Back in WW2, there was a concept of a 'rammer fighter' proposed - maybe we need racing drones that kamikaze at the offending drone
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...=1490&ito=1490
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne, Seeding the area in advance, followed by remote operations would indeed create difficulties in neutralizing the ground operation. If drones were dispersed in advance there would be a risk of premature discovery. An earlier suggestion of active van deployment however would minimise that risk.
The video clip posted by TEEEJ should silence that some of the countermeasures proposed are wholly unrealistic. The height and speed would seem to rule out the blunderbus solutions. The speed and manoeuvre would present a difficult shot for a snipper.
I see some sources say a good drone can fly at 50 mph.
The video clip posted by TEEEJ should silence that some of the countermeasures proposed are wholly unrealistic. The height and speed would seem to rule out the blunderbus solutions. The speed and manoeuvre would present a difficult shot for a snipper.
I see some sources say a good drone can fly at 50 mph.
Recent footage on Sky News shows that METIS Aerospace have also been deployed at Gatwick. METIS Aerospace SKYPERION Counter UAV Solution was tested this year at Southend Airport.
Skyperion - Counter UAV Solution - Metis Aerospace
Skyperion - Counter UAV Solution - Metis Aerospace
The problem may be even greater than "Chaos. Disruption for 36 hours".
A singleton, every now and then, might well be destroyed or neutered, but the very fact of detection and neutralising would surely generate a knee-jerk grounding for a period. Then a backlog.
Repeat.
Motor off to Stansted.
Repeat.
Thereafter a telephone call with authentication and who needs a drone?
A singleton, every now and then, might well be destroyed or neutered, but the very fact of detection and neutralising would surely generate a knee-jerk grounding for a period. Then a backlog.
Repeat.
Motor off to Stansted.
Repeat.
Thereafter a telephone call with authentication and who needs a drone?
Looks like repeat number 1,or the telephone call.