As someone with a bit of experience in the unmanned aircraft world, allow me to explain, once more, how gunloons are dummies.
Setting aside the paranoia and conspiracy theories surrounding drones, they are remarkably hard to shoot down. After all, drones have been deployed to honest-to-Flying Spaghetti Monster combat zones against fighters with military-grade weapons, tactics, and training.
Yes, drones have been shot down. Less than 5 of the earlier UAV variants were shot down in Kosovo using anti-aircraft weapons and shoulder-fired missile launchers. But when drones go down--infrequently-- it's usually because of a mechanical malfunction. Moreover, today's drones are better protected in terms of avionics (the part you need to disable)--standard hunting gear just ain't gonna do it.
Of course, this ignores the fact that shooting a moving aircraft at a distance of well over 600 feet with a legal firearm --ain't gonna happen. And let's not forget--gunloons aren't the brightest among us --can they distinguish between the Evvvvilll Gobbbeermint drone and the Piper Cub? And let us not forget that throwing lead into the air for no good reason has bad consequences
Jade,
ReplyDeleteSince you have experience in such things I'm sure you know that uav's come in many sizes. The Ravens are low altitude devices designed to be man packed for instance.
But I'm pretty sure you realize the drone license thing is a form of political speech regarding the ever progressive encroachment on privacy.
First of all, drones are not only about "the ever progressive encroachment on privacy." That's only one aspect of the technology, but it's the one the paranoid government haters love to focus on.
DeleteSecondly, is shooting at them an appropriate response?
And spy satellites which have existed since the 60s aren't an "encroachment on privacy"? Remote sensing is a pretty advance science. I won't get into some of the images I've seen, but let's say that something which can find a large aquifer in a desert might be able to spot things a whole lot of things a lot more accurately than a drone.
DeleteBottom line, the quip in Ice Station Zebra about being able to "read the writing on a cigarette pack 2 miles away" was state of the Art in 1969. It's gotten much better since then.
"It's gotten much better since then."
DeleteYes, it has gotten a lot better. That should suggest that there is more cause for concern. Wouldn't this be like the argument made about the technical advances in firearms being something the founders couldn't have fathomed? Only in this case referring to the fourth amendment.
And currently, the government hasn't been exactly reassuring in showing responsibility for protection of a citizen's privacy.
I'm willing to consider anti-satellite missles for all good citizens.
Delete"I won't get into some of the images I've seen"
DeleteYou haven't seen shit.
Jade, you have experience with drones? I always figured you to be a terrorist...
ReplyDeleteBut isn't this exactly what a .50 caliber rifle is for, according to you?
Number 1: It's a political statement--people know they're not going to shoot down predator drones, so you look silly for taking this so seriously.
ReplyDeleteNumber 2: "Of course, this ignores the fact that shooting a moving aircraft at a distance of well over 600 feet with a legal firearm --ain't gonna happen."
Did you just admit that you guys are totally full of shit about .50 cal's shooting down jumbo jets?
Aren't the drones much smaller than jumbo jets?
DeleteSee comment below about shooting down jets.
DeleteYes, Mike. However, they don't typically fly at 600 feet either.
DeleteAnd before you bring in takeoff and landing (which Laci and I are discussing below), Jade was talking about cruising altitude which is what you guys always give the impression you're talking about when you talk about shooting down planes.
Thank you, Jade. Now tell all your comrades how dumb it is to suggest you can shoot down an airliner with a .50BMG.
ReplyDeleteOne difference is that, regardless of the likelihood of success, shooting at an unmanned aircraft is one thing but shooting at a passenger airliner is another. The possibility, however slight, of a long-range sniper rifle being fired at an airliner is something serious.
DeleteAlso, I am under the impression that the .50 would be used during Take Off or Landing on an Airliner.
DeleteIf we are getting into it: I believe El Al planes have the ability to spray chaff as a countermeasure to hand held rocker launchers.
I think these are the studies you are referring to:
DeleteA 1995 RAND Corporation report identified 50 caliber sniper rifles as a serious threat to the security of U.S. Air Force bases. After noting the success of Barrett sniper rifles against light armored vehicles in the 1991 Gulf War, the authors
noted, “Such weapons also give light forces a portable and quite deadly option against parked aircraft....These rifles are
effective against man-sized targets up to 1,600 meters away and could hit aircraft-sized targets at even greater ranges....It
seems only a matter of time before these or similar weapons find their way into the arsenals of potential adversaries, if they have not already done so.” The report noted that the civilian infrastructure is similarly vulnerable to such attacks.
In November 2004, the Homeland Security Center at the University of Southern California—funded by the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security— identified 50 caliber sniper rifles as an imminent threat to civil aviation. A risk analysis prepared by the Center states that the long range and power of 50 caliber sniper rifles enable them to “target fuel tanks, passenge
rs, pilots, [and] down aircraft in worst case.” The analysis also noted that Al Qaeda and the IRA have acquired 50 caliber sniper rifles and that they have been used against Coalition forces in Iraq
In a 2004 report on security at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), the RAND Corporation identified snipers using 50 caliber rifles to fire at parked and taxiing aircraft among a list of potential terrorist attacks. The list of attack options was compiled by considering the historical tendencies and expertise of terrorist organizations, based on information we gained from intelligence organizations.” The analysis was unable, however, to identify “any truly satisfactory” security improvement options (SIOs) to protect against such sniper attacks.
BTW, the RAND Corporation is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company.
Yes, the BLAND Corporation (know the reference?) writes lots of hypothetical papers. But do explain how a .50 BMG and a .338 Lapua are significantly different in destroying aircraft in the manner described. And then, since plenty of aircraft were shot down using .30-'06 and .303 British rounds during the Second World War, explain how those are still to be allowed--unless you're now wanting to ban common deer cartridges.
DeleteParked/taxing aircraft, Laci. And I must add that passenger aircraft have more than one engine that would need to be taken out.
DeleteBut to clarify, you are in complete disagreement with Jadegold who mocks the chances of shooting down a single engine drone at 600ft. Do you realize how quickly a passenger jet gets above 600ft on takeoff?
Yes, Laci, you're correct regarding takeoff and landing being the times that the most credible reports have worried about a plane being shot. And you are correct about El Al, though that's neither here nor there since chaff will do nothing to stop bullets.
DeleteAs we've pointed out before, you're still talking about a tough shot to make to hit a plane going 100+ mph--especially to hit it with any accuracy. Moreover, when shooting at such planes, or at ones sitting on the runway and taxiing, a .50 cal is not the only weapon that can do great damage to our aircraft. There is no reasons terrorists couldn't use a Mosin Nagant loaded with old Russian API or PZ rounds to greater effect than civilian loadings of the .50 cal. Ammo not generally available in the United States, but manufactured in great quantities overseas and easily smuggled into the country.
There as an application in using a sniper rifle to disable parked or taxiing planes (which could have a military application) , but somehow I don't think causing travelers to be delayed because they need to change planes is Al Qaeda's next big thing.
DeleteI figured al-Qaeda would go for getting people's luggage mixed up.
DeleteYou do realize that anyone who really tries to cash in on the bounty will be supplying a confession physical evidence to the government for prosecution, right? More proof that its a political statement.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WyutmPHk1nA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWyutmPHk1nA
ReplyDeleteThey seem pretty vulnerable when they get close enough.
We're talking REAL drones (e.g., predator MQ-1 and Reaper MQ-9)--not kiddie toys.
DeleteThat was a kiddie toy.
Depends on your definition of kiddie toy Laci. It doesn't have to be big to invade privacy. The military does have smaller ones in their inventory. As I posted above, look up the Raven.
DeleteAs I also mentioned above, the person who tries to collect the bounty will basically be signing a confession that he destroyed federal property AND supplying physical evidence to the authorities.