All a bit hush hush. Whilst I can see the justification of using this defensively it does pose questions on what might be the outcome if the system were to bring down UAS and cause injury or damage. Also I wonder what is meant by 'marginalize'.
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/technology/airbus-introduces-new-anti-drone-system-159938/ (http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/technology/airbus-introduces-new-anti-drone-system-159938/)
Quoteit does pose questions on what might be the outcome if the system were to bring down UAS and cause injury or damage
This is actually a major concern along with the issue of "if we jam GPS signals and WiFi" in public areas .... and how do we know what to effect, 433mhz to 5.8 ghz is a wide bandwidth.
Clearly alot easier if the off the shelf model is identified and the control link already known. It's those FPV :goofy: crazy people that make bespoke platforms that scare the masses as no one knows what will fly out of the garden shed next :goofy:
;D
Isn't endangering an aircraft (which is what a drone is, apparently) a criminal offence?
The world is going crazy.
A good idea IMO
High risk terrorist targets need them. No 10, airports etc.
I would imagine they could swamp all frequencies with gigawatts of power and a very directional antenna and really screw something up.
Would it work if a craft was programmed with waypoints?
Quote from: Billy_boy_2010 on January 08, 2016, 10:48:22 PM
Would it work if a craft was programmed with waypoints?
The waypoints rely on the drone knowing where it is and it does this by reference to GPS. This is how it navigates. According to the blurb "the system uses a jammer to interrupt the link between the drone and its pilot or navigation system". So from this I would deduce that programmed waypoints would not be immune. The blurb obviously does not tell us how it achieves this jamming but I would suppose that even inertial navigation would not be immune. The only sure way of defeating the jamming may be a tiny navigator with an aeronautical chart, ruler and coloured pencil. Old tech but it worked for the Dambusters. :D
Ha interesting indeed!
Its a crap idea.
Let me get this straight - they identify a drone on, say, an airport glidepath - and decide to confuse it plus remove control from the pilot. Brilliant plan guys. So now not only is it in the way, the pilot will be mashing the controls wondering WTF is going on, and be completely unable to remove the aircraft out of harms way.
Yea, sounds safe to me.
Quote from: Steve W on January 09, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Its a crap idea.
Let me get this straight - they identify a drone on, say, an airport glidepath - and decide to confuse it plus remove control from the pilot. Brilliant plan guys. So now not only is it in the way, the pilot will be mashing the controls wondering WTF is going on, and be completely unable to remove the aircraft out of harms way.
Yea, sounds safe to me.
And dont forget they also say they can vector in PoPo to the exact location of the Pilot!
Meanwhile, an 11 year old shoots his mum with his dads gun that was bought at a gun show without background checks.
The Airbus site now features their anti-UAV system. However it doesn't say any more than was originally posted last week on canadianmanufacturing.com. Sensor data fusion apparently. (?)
https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/counter-uav-system-from-airbus-defence-and-space-protects-large-installations-and-events-from-illicit-intrusion/
Not Airbus but relevant to the thread.
And another, which was posted on the Forum last year I seem to remember. I wonder if they realise that Phantom 3s use GLONASS as well as GPS for positioning.
Knowing the American psyche, it's much more likely they would resurrect these to use against drones - and accidentally anything else in the nearest half mile of air space.
Better if your mates have machine guns to bring to the party...
whoops...missed!