President Can Use Drone Strikes Against Americans on U.S. Soil

[TMF]

Lol, some of you guys have been playing a little too much COD.  RPGs and AT4's at UAVs? Hahahaha, good luck with that one.  Hope your back blast area is clear :wave:

I've got to shoot all three. :)

[scoutfsu]

2/3 for me.  No MANPADs for this little guy.  I might reclass into a drone operator....punch a hellfire into a CTD store or something fun.

[mikegideon]

I think the best options for taking out a drone would be:

1. some sort of device to disrupt/jam guidance/control systems causing drone to crash itself

2. Munitions laden mini-drones that can be quickly deployed and flown into the offending drone basically a quadcopter with live transmission camera and an electronically detonated pipe bomb.

Honestly, I think option 1 would be the easier (and less expensive) of the two options.

 

1. A buttload of RF at close to the right frequencies. They probably have a backup guidance program in case they lose their link. You may not crash it, but you can probably disrupt its mission. 

[Moped]

Personally, I don't think there is a defense against drones right now.  That's why they are so successful.  Apparently, the bad guys never know there is one coming until it is too late to do anything about it.

 

My personal feeling about this is, I have no problem with the police using a drone to take out a bad guy, if he or she is an immediate threat to innocent civilians or LE.  That is justifiable. Nor do I have a problem with how they go after Americans that are part of AQ and who are in other countries and beyond the reach of our law. What I have a problem with is using a drone to take out a U.S. Citizen, on U.S. soil that has not had an opportunity to surrender and turn himself or herself over to authorities and have their case pleaded in court.  That is making those in charge, Judge, Jury and Executioner.  That is against the Constitution and Laws of this country, regardless how those in power in Washington, try to justify it.  Bush started us on this slippery slope and we continue to slide on down it.  Obama and his ilk have done nothing to stop the process.  This is one of the reasons I think they are all the same.

 

What blows my mind is how Holder goes on and on about how we must uphold the law or we cease being a Nation of Laws, but when it suits him, he ignores the law.  And make no mistake about it, the only reason he finally came out and said that it would not be legal was because he was forced into a cornerRand Paul and other members of Congress on both sides and had no other choice.  His statement in the end, was even like a petulant child's response, who has lost an argument with his parent.  If he had really thought that way in the beginning, he would have come out and said it the first time.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Moped

[TMF]

Personally, I don't think there is a defense against drones right now.  That's why they are so successful.  Apparently, the bad guys never know there is one coming until it is too late to do anything about it.
 

Same could be said about a B-1 bomber. The only difference is the administration doesn't have to risk personnel, and the UAVs carry a much, much smaller payload.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll almost bet you a B-1 has a backup inertial system. If they don't they were insane building it. Well, I guess

they could have been insane on that, too.

 

B-2 probably doesn't, though.

Edited March 10, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I was right. Looks like the B-1's are refitting their inertials with some new stuff.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_to_Upgrade_B_1_Navigation_System_for_USAF_999.html

I think that one would still be a doozey to do what the Iranians did to that drone.

[TMF]

Well, I was right. Looks like the B-1's are refitting their inertials with some new stuff.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_to_Upgrade_B_1_Navigation_System_for_USAF_999.html
I think that one would still be a doozey to do what the Iranians did to that drone.

To be honest I haven't really paid attention to the Iranian claims of taking control of one of our UAVs since just about everything they say is BS. Not saying it isn't possible, but it's hard to weed through the BS to figure out what's going on there.

[DaveTN]

Funny story… We were in the Caribbean on exercises. For that I was the Boat Engineer for the Captains Gig, so I was standing by the Captain on the flight deck. A young guy was operating the remote controlled drones for a gunnery exercise. One of the guys on deck asks the guy what happens if we shoot the drone? He replied “You couldn’t shoot that drone if you tried.” Our Captain looked at the Chief Gunners Mate and asks “Chief can you hit that drone?” He replied “Yes Sir”. The Captain said “Do so.”

The Chief walked to the aft gun mount and the Captain told the guy to take evasive measures. Two rapid rounds fired and the drone exploded. The look on that guys face was priceless.

We shot his remote controlled boat too, but we brought it on-board and the HT’s fixed it.
 

[mikegideon]

To be honest I haven't really paid attention to the Iranian claims of taking control of one of our UAVs since just about everything they say is BS. Not saying it isn't possible, but it's hard to weed through the BS to figure out what's going on there.

 

Those things use GPS so they know their location. Satellite transmitters have relatively low power because they're sustained by solar panels, and have serious weight constraints to boot. Replacing those GPS signals from the ground isn't that hard. I'm betting they have already done some workarounds.

[TMF]

Those things use GPS so they know their location. Satellite transmitters have relatively low power because they're sustained by solar panels, and have serious weight constraints to boot. Replacing those GPS signals from the ground isn't that hard. I'm betting they have already done some workarounds.

You're not accounting for encryption of the feed and controls.

[mikegideon]

You're not accounting for encryption of the feed and controls.

 

Not talking about that. GPS is GPS. You don't try to control it. You lie to it about its location. Remember Selective Availability? It was part of the GPS system until Slick Willie turned it off. It degraded the accuracy of the GPS system for civilian use. AFIK, the military doesn't have their own GPS satellites yet.

[TMF]

Not talking about that. GPS is GPS. You don't try to control it. You lie to it about its location. Remember Selective Availability? It was part of the GPS system until Slick Willie turned it off. It degraded the accuracy of the GPS system for civilian use. AFIK, the military doesn't have their own GPS satellites yet.

What does that have to do with taking control of it though? Even if it isn't broadcasting valid coordinates the pilot would still be in control unless the signal was jammed.

[mikegideon]

What does that have to do with taking control of it though? Even if it isn't broadcasting valid coordinates the pilot would still be in control unless the signal was jammed.

 

Has nothing to do with taking control. How does the pilot know where he is? If the GPS on the drone is wrong, then the pilot is wrong too, unless he swoops down and reads a water tower.

[TMF]

Has nothing to do with taking control. How does the pilot know where he is? If the GPS on the drone is wrong, then the pilot is wrong too, unless he swoops down and reads a water tower.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Not sure how feasible that is for an aircraft at such a high altitude, but lets say worse case scenario the a/c has its reporting grid altered, it still is being piloted by some smart folks that are no stranger to navigating by terrain. I've seen it done first hand in Afghanistan.... no GPS, just going off road ways and terrain features. If such a capability exists you can guarantee there is an SOP to counter it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Mike knows a lot more of "what is possible" than I, but am guessing if you just jam the communications, it will automatically fly home if the drone "knows where it is". Even amateur quad copters you and I buy can have that feature and pretty cheap.

 

So to ruin a high-altitude drone's day (not necessarily take over control) am guessing you have to at least jam the gps signals and the com signals, and hope it isn't smart enough to have inertial guidance and/or ordinary terrain-following smarts. Then it will eventually run out of fuel and crash unless it flies far enough from your jammer that it can regain com and gps.

 

IIRC we have cruise missiles smart enough to optical or radar follow terrain, so it wouldn't be impossible that drones could have the same capability.

 

So if the drone doesn't solely rely on GPS for location, then it might be difficult to bring it down with mere jamming or GPS spoofing, because even a hostile government might not have a wide enough jamming footprint. You would need to shoot it down. If the drone defaults to straight flight, or terrain-following, or inertial guidance when the control and gps drops out, then it will eventually fly out of range of the jamming? If you could spoof GPS coordinates and the drone doesn't have any other method of location, you could capture it over your airspace until it runs out of fuel? Fly it around in circles by continuously spoofing the GPS signals.

 

A "tech-savvy" government could probably defeat "real time" mission control over its airspace, but if the drone doesn't rely on GPS when it loses control and GPS, you could still at least get surveillance photos from a flyby, like U2 or Blackbird photos, after the drone flies out of the jamming and you regain control?

 

If we continue the path to a surveillance society, perhaps the small drones and remote sensors will be more of a civil liberties concern than high-altitude big drones. But the small ones might be theoretically easier for non-government entites to disable them? Of course if a swarm of small government drones happen to quit working while overflying your property, then the government will have a real good idea who to blame. :)

 

 

[TMF]

Mike knows a lot more of "what is possible" than I, but am guessing if you just jam the communications, it will automatically fly home if the drone "knows where it is". Even amateur quad copters you and I buy can have that feature and pretty cheap.
 
So to ruin a high-altitude drone's day (not necessarily take over control) am guessing you have to at least jam the gps signals and the com signals, and hope it isn't smart enough to have inertial guidance and/or ordinary terrain-following smarts. Then it will eventually run out of fuel and crash unless it flies far enough from your jammer that it can regain com and gps.
 
IIRC we have cruise missiles smart enough to optical or radar follow terrain, so it wouldn't be impossible that drones could have the same capability.
 
So if the drone doesn't solely rely on GPS for location, then it might be difficult to bring it down with mere jamming or GPS spoofing, because even a hostile government might not have a wide enough jamming footprint. You would need to shoot it down. If the drone defaults to straight flight, or terrain-following, or inertial guidance when the control and gps drops out, then it will eventually fly out of range of the jamming? If you could spoof GPS coordinates and the drone doesn't have any other method of location, you could capture it over your airspace until it runs out of fuel? Fly it around in circles by continuously spoofing the GPS signals.
 
A "tech-savvy" government could probably defeat "real time" mission control over its airspace, but if the drone doesn't rely on GPS when it loses control and GPS, you could still at least get surveillance photos from a flyby, like U2 or Blackbird photos, after the drone flies out of the jamming and you regain control?
 
If we continue the path to a surveillance society, perhaps the small drones and remote sensors will be more of a civil liberties concern than high-altitude big drones. But the small ones might be theoretically easier for non-government entites to disable them? Of course if a swarm of small government drones happen to quit working while overflying your property, then the government will have a real good idea who to blame. :)

Okay... noooow I see what you're getting at in regard to spoofing and jamming simultaneously to prevent it from returning-to-home and spoofing a GPS signal which causes it to fly in a circle. Of course, I am not familiar with the frequency used for comms with the a/c, but I figure the frequency range you're jamming would have to be pretty specific as to not jam the GPS signal, as my experience with jammers has been that I was not able to get a GPS signal... that was with a Garmin. The jammers didn't block the GPS antenna used on our super expensive self tracking equipment, so I'm not certain how that worked, especially since we're pulling data from the same satellites, in theory.

[JayC]

The freq's wouldn't be all that hard...  The jamming would be down right difficult.

 

First, the UAV's have 2 control systems in them.  The primary is a Sat link from the bird back to whoever is controlling the aircraft.  This is hard to jam from the ground since the antenna is positioned on the 'top' of the air frame and pointed skyward.  There are ways around this, most likely focusing on the satellite the UAV is communicating with.  The secondary link works over shorter range and is only used in case of primary communications loss, but unless you have a ground station within 200 - 300 miles it wouldn't be an issue.

 

GPS 'spoofing' is a lot more difficult in this case.  While the civilian GPS signal is very easy to jam/spoof the military uses a separate signal that is encrypted called PY-Code, and now the military has started to turn on M-Code (also encrypted and better to handle jamming).  So spoofing without the master key is next to impossible for a non-state actor because the use of PY-Code or M-Code instead of the regular civilian CA-Code.

 

Okay... noooow I see what you're getting at in regard to spoofing and jamming simultaneously to prevent it from returning-to-home and spoofing a GPS signal which causes it to fly in a circle. Of course, I am not familiar with the frequency used for comms with the a/c, but I figure the frequency range you're jamming would have to be pretty specific as to not jam the GPS signal, as my experience with jammers has been that I was not able to get a GPS signal... that was with a Garmin. The jammers didn't block the GPS antenna used on our super expensive self tracking equipment, so I'm not certain how that worked, especially since we're pulling data from the same satellites, in theory.