|
If they catch these little barstewards then 'Restorative Justice' would suggest a hefty fine + x00 hours spent working in 'customer services' at Gatquick as a suitable punishment :E
|
Originally Posted by OmegaV6
(Post 10340379)
Winter is coming ........... :)
|
Originally Posted by Training Risky
(Post 10340554)
I am proud to work at the world’s busiest single-use rwy (at present!) airport and we are all gutted that a couple of drones have ruined everyone’s xmas.
Touring the terminals I have noticed little to none aggression from pax and many project workers like myself have volunteered to help the ops team manage the displaced pax. Current list of potential Bandits are: Anti-gatwick expansion lobby groups. Bored teenagers with mad ECM spoofing skills. The EU Commission seeking to undermine British industry. Islamic State. The Russian GRU. The Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army - model aircraft division! The real issue now is that given the widespread news coverage we’re ripe for copycat incidents anytime anybody wants to make a point, and it would be easy to do it across multiple sites. Can you imagine a coordinated UAV incident across all the London airports? |
My only real surprise is it's taken so long for someone to do something like this. |
|
Isnt airspace security RAF responsibility .? Time the new CAS was told to use his resources to sort this, he has the resources. Otherwise he is fired. Problem solved . |
Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY
(Post 10340905)
Isnt airspace security RAF responsibility .? Time the new CAS was told to use his resources to sort this, he has the resources. Otherwise he is fired. Problem solved . Or maybe it’s the Army’s responsibility given that it’s a ground based threat. Or as a criminal activity maybe it’s a law enforcement issue. But it certainly isn’t CAS’ responsibility. |
Well, I had a long conversation at the RAF club last week with a serving officer who outlined capabilities re electronic warfare which I had no idea the RAF possesed. If what I was told was correct, and I have no doubt it was, taking out a drone should be no problem, no problem at all. |
The standard of all too many of our TV 'experts' such as the Snow clan is frankly abysmal.
|
..erm, clearly it IS a problem! -but clearly for a lot of us, the manner of its reporting is the only issue |
I was puzzled by the dragon references but it's amazing how useful Google is. I now see that it is a reference to a TV programme called Game of Thrones which I have never seen. I know about as much about popular culture as Jon Snow (the Channel 4 one) knows about aviation!.
|
Yer gotta get with the programme Mr TTN! No, I didn't know either! 😊
|
IIRC the Rockapes have latched onto C-UAS as their next justification to exist, not unreasonably linking it to point defence and SHORAD. There have been several trials and experiments looking at the variance between the claims of the C-UAS industry and the reality on the ground, such as the BRISTOW series. In short, dealing with drones is not simple. Sure, jamming the command link is possible, but most UAVs operate in the frequency band of other, legitimate, spectrum users. Some have multiple frequencies. Normally, if jammed, a UAV will think the command link has failed and will apply 'Lost Link Logic' and RTB. Clearly, if you are engaging in nefarious acts (and LGW counts - the UAVs seem to be of a size where they will have had GPS 'gating' and this must have been disabled), the LLL will be reset to either a target or 'dump' location, so jamming the command link isn't a guarantee of success of either denying an attack or locating the User. The netted C-UAS are short ranged, and on an open airfield a UAV user would have time to see a team approach and move out of range. Physically disrupting with rifle, or causing the UAV to fall via other means, then causes other issues about who/what the drone lands on (and who's responsible if it incurs damage/injury) and with the former, where do the stray rounds go if you miss? Perhaps not an issue on a large, open and controlled airfield, but not something you could use without risk in an urban environment. I don't doubt that LGW, GIP, the CAA, Sussex Police and The Home Office (not to mention the news networks….) have all been bombarded with wild promises from the C-UAS snake-oil sellers sniffing a big, big opportunity as well as free advertising….
|
No laser. How about a water pistol?
Originally Posted by Timelord
(Post 10340569)
Anybody any ideas about what military capabilities might actually help? ( Apart from a rock squadron “ dominating” the surrounding countryside!) |
The history of air warfare has always seen airborne counters developed to deal with airborne threats, so time for autonomous hunter-killer drones!
|
In wartime this would have been dealt with in about three minutes flat. In peacetime this is a REAL challenge. There is no way you can contemplate shooting the thing down as the risk of a miss or even a hit resulting in the round killing a 4 year old girl playing in her back garden is far FAR too great. 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.
Retired BA/By Not sure just how CAS can effect this at all. Shorad went to the Army years ago, you cannot even consider shooting it down with a fast jet, and even a sniper from a helicopter has the unacceptable risk attached as described above. I should think that electronic jamming also has a problem of taking out a lot of unintended capability locally. A drone over Gatwick is a very different proposition from something similar crossing into Israel. |
A drone over Gatwick is a very different proposition from something similar crossing into Israel. |
When they do get these knobends, after the courts have dealt with them, it would be nice if all the travellers affected by this, individually took civil action against them for recovery of expenses and losses etc. I think that would be far more damaging than anything the courts will end up doing.
|
Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY
(Post 10340950)
Well, I had a long conversation at the RAF club last week with a serving officer who outlined capabilities re electronic warfare which I had no idea the RAF possesed. If what I was told was correct, and I have no doubt it was, taking out a drone should be no problem, no problem at all. I would suggest that this officer be reported and dealt with. EW is probably the most sacred cow any force can have. Even a tech airman would know not to blab about what he does or knows. |
ExRAFRadar
Well said!! Does 'NTK' mean nothing nowdays? :rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.