DARPA Plans to Arm Drones With Missile-Blasting Lasers

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   



The Pentagon this week edged closer to mounting missile-destroying lasers on unmanned and manned aircraft, awarding $26 million to defense contractors to develop the technology.

Under the name Project Endurance, DARPA, the Department of Defense’s research agency, awarded Northrop Grumman $14.6 million and Lockheed Martin $11.4 million in contracts for the effort, according to Military & Aerospace Electronics. Called “Project Endurance,” the research will “develop technology for pod-mounted lasers to protect a variety of airborne platforms from emerging and legacy electro-optical IR guided surface-to-air missiles,” according to DARPA’s 2014 budget request.

The project focuses on “miniaturizing component technologies, developing high-precision target tracking, identification, and lightweight agile beam control to support target engagement,” as well as “the phenomenology of laser-target interactions and associated threat vulnerabilities.”

Those vulnerabilities have been a particular concern when it comes to slow-moving drones, whose job it is to loiter more than it is to evade, making them a potential easy target to be shot out of the sky.
wired

You know at first this seems like a good idea however if one of these went down with all that sensitive Top Secret tech onboard and was recovered by those not friendly to the US we will have just given them a huge hand up. If they do this I hope someone has the forethought to put a self-destruct device onboard with lots of thermite to make it unusable to our enemies.




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
How long before they start filling the things with anthrax or some other bio-chem agent.

"Shoot one down we dare you."



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Nice picture, but it's more like this. It's to shoot down air to air missiles fired at them. It's a laser jammer, and several are already under development. That one in the picture is for the F-35.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Quite frankly, any drone hovering above me I would have a go at it, I would be quite happy to dispatch it. A mere $26m for R&D..That's pathetic, and more so, why the need for R&D or rather somthing that has been around for long time.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


HMMM….will it work to jam police lasers??

If so I want one.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Because they are miniaturizing them to a degree that they haven't been in the past. They are making the small enough to fit on a Predator or Reaper sized aircraft, which means they are going to be very small.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I looked but I couldn't find out if they would be capable of firing multiple times or not on a single mission do you know?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


As far as I know they can fire as many times as they have power for. They're going to be fairly low powered, as they don't need to have a huge amount of range. So they should be able to get several shots out of one, at least.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
To clarify, these wouldn't destroy the missile, they would be used to blind the seeker head, as quite a few new missiles use optical guidance as part of the guidance package, as well as IR guidance. The laser would blind one or both of those, which would cause the missile to destruct itself.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

overratedpatriotism
How long before they start filling the things with anthrax or some other bio-chem agent.

"Shoot one down we dare you."


That's the first thing in relation to scare tactics and drones that I've seen that I can actually see.

That is something I definitely see.. It would not be offered as the reason, obviously, but hey, that somethingsomething needs that radioactive doodad inside it to work. Oh it also explodes and pumps out massive amounts of lethal radiation if it's shot down, didn't we mention that? oops, but well you shouldnt shoot down our stuff huh guys!

No different than the medical profession sticking acetamenophen in everything because it kills you so if you take a recreational amount of something, oh boy hello jaundice and liver failure, but oops, yeah that's your fault, its there to stop your head boo boo and you shouldn't have taken 10 of them huh guys!

As to the tech on board, they will definitely have a manner of destroying it. It would be the second though after "How can we weaponise this?"



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

smurfy
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Quite frankly, any drone hovering above me I would have a go at it, I would be quite happy to dispatch it. A mere $26m for R&D..That's pathetic, and more so, why the need for R&D or rather somthing that has been around for long time.



What about any old helecopter? Youd be happy to shoot them down too? You don't know who owns it.. or whos in it.. Probably some governemnt operative. Shoot it. Shoot it quick, with a rocket. Destroy other peoples property.

I feel like I should invest in drones.. just so I can make millions suing people who think it's fun to shoot down things in the sky because they're a skeered.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy
 


Because they are miniaturizing them to a degree that they haven't been in the past. They are making the small enough to fit on a Predator or Reaper sized aircraft, which means they are going to be very small.

When you are getting government money, size doesn't matter
In fact miniaturization is usually a more costly affair.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


And not miniaturizing them means your Sentinels and Predators don't get them. And the Predator/Reaper probably needs it the most out of the UAV fleet.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Seems like a re-hash of this system, just miniaturized and adapted for drones:

Northrop Grumman Guardian

It was originally going to combal illegal but robust international arms sales and was going to be used on commercial aircraft - one of the first 'pods' was tested on a FedEx plane.

It was also a robot system.

Drones, though, have a lot more enemies than just the odd shoulder held missile. Alot of people don't like this escalated invasion of privacy and threat to life.

They'll be brought down by hackers, imo, not missiles.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Why would it be "combat illegal"? There's nothing against using lasers in any way shape or form.

What was "a robot too" the laser system or the FedEx plane it was tested on? If it's the FedEx, then no, it wasn't.

As for hackers, not once they encrypt the GPS. That's all anyone has done to bring down a UAV, is spoof the GPS.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Why would it be "combat illegal"? There's nothing against using lasers in any way shape or form.

What was "a robot too" the laser system or the FedEx plane it was tested on? If it's the FedEx, then no, it wasn't.

As for hackers, not once they encrypt the GPS. That's all anyone has done to bring down a UAV, is spoof the GPS.


The original 'pod' idea was a completely automated (no pilot input or knowledge) system. The reasoning behind the need for this system, originally, was to combat surface to air aimed at commercial traffic. The reason that surface to air needed to be combated was because of the out of control black market arms sales situation allowing all kinds of weapons to get into the hands of minds bent on murder.

The system was robotic.

In nature, the antidote is often found near to the poison. Drones, in the hands of local police forces and local corporate headquarters are, in many circles, perceived as a poison...a problem in that they can be judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up in a cute little package. So where there's software, there's a way. What can be encrypted can be decrypted.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It still is automatic. No human can react fast enough to a surface to air missile being launched at a plane. I don't care who you are, you can not detect, see, target, and fire a laser or anything else for that matter in the time it takes a SAM to lock on, fire, and hit if the system is under human control. For one thing a human can't monitor the entire airspace around the aircraft well enough to detect anything.

Oh, you could hack a UAV, with enough computing power, and time, you can hack anything. Good luck with that though. It won't happen any time soon. It's been tried, a lot, and no one has succeeded.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It still is automatic. No human can react fast enough to a surface to air missile being launched at a plane. I don't care who you are, you can not detect, see, target, and fire a laser or anything else for that matter in the time it takes a SAM to lock on, fire, and hit if the system is under human control. For one thing a human can't monitor the entire airspace around the aircraft well enough to detect anything.

Oh, you could hack a UAV, with enough computing power, and time, you can hack anything. Good luck with that though. It won't happen any time soon. It's been tried, a lot, and no one has succeeded.


omg, if Minot can be hacked/drugged, anything can happen. Minot had warnings over and over. Skynet will be brought down. Not by armed rebels but by hackers. The government, itself, has hired the bulk of the hackers. Given them direct access. Wake up.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


People have been trying for YEARS to hack a UAV (beyond just the GPS). No one has succeeded, but yet again, you seem to think it will be easy.

A base has fixed access points to its internet. A UAV has limited frequency communications, usually bounced off a satellite. A base sits there for decades with those ports open. A UAV only receives signals when it's going to be flying. A base never moves. A UAV can go for days without ever flying, and flies at random times.

Gee, see any kind of a problem with hacking a UAV over a base here? Because I sure as hell do.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


People have been trying for YEARS to hack a UAV (beyond just the GPS). No one has succeeded, but yet again, you seem to think it will be easy.

A base has fixed access points to its internet. A UAV has limited frequency communications, usually bounced off a satellite. A base sits there for decades with those ports open. A UAV only receives signals when it's going to be flying. A base never moves. A UAV can go for days without ever flying, and flies at random times.

Gee, see any kind of a problem with hacking a UAV over a base here? Because I sure as hell do.


So the drones that crash are attributed to what? Acts of God? Operator asleep like Minot? Where's the hard copy for that drone? In a fixed location. Who's operating that drone? A fixed location. Unless they're cell phone activated (the same way that weather modification is)...is that what you're saying? They are ambiently activated?





top topics
 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant